Print

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

[X30XE]

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."

[Sir Tigger KC]

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. 

[chrisgixer]

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

[Sir Tigger KC]

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.   

[Rog]

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 ?"

[chrisgixer]

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. for 35 in a 30 I might add.

[chrisgixer]

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.   

...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.

[cem_devecioglu]

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..

[cem_devecioglu]

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..

[Sir Tigger KC]

...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.... 

[chrisgixer]

...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...

[78bex]

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". 

[cem_devecioglu]

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

[chrisgixer]

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.

[henryd]

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