to actually feel sorry for the driver of the car? WARNING- upsetting video.

[ToThePark]

Ok, so I've been a wimp and name changed in case I get totally flamed.

www.suffolk.police.uk/newsandevents/newsstories/2014/september/hardhittingvideolaunched.aspx

The motorcyclist was travelling at 100mph past a busy junction. I watched this video and thought, as a car driver, this could easily happen to me. What an horrific thing to have on your conscience.

What if it had been a child crossing?

Has anyone said doing that sort of speed is a good idea?

It was absolutely crazy to do, particularly when approaching a junction.

Every motorcyclist I know who has commented on the video, has said he was crazy to do that speed.

But the car driver did something that many car drivers do and something that causes so many accidents, something that motorcyclists, or their bereaved friends/families, can relate to.

Maryz I certainly haven't claimed the rider to be totally innocent of blame. My first post specifically said both parties are to blame in different ways. The problem is that some drivers don't look for motorcyclists, they make a quick glance and so it's no wonder accidents happen. To spot a motorcyclist drivers need to make a conscious effort to look out for them. The driver admitted they did not see the motorcyclist in this case, and that was sadly a failing on his part irrespective of the speed of the motorcyclist. It could have been a speeding police motorcyclist with the same outcome.

Boney I gave you the author and the year. Put that into google and it is the first result. Not difficult, is it?

Saintly the study didn't find car drivers and motorcyclist equally responsible . As knee has pointed out your quote of 40% is skewed by including accidents that didn't involve anyone other than the biker. The driver has not had all the blame, even the motorcyclists poor Mother has recognised his speed. No one has supported the speed he was riding at. Not one person. The car driver still crossed his right of way.

Just noticed you saying riders who have collisions alone must be driving like idiots. I think I'll bow out of this conversation with you at that point. You've clearly never ridden and have no experience of how different road conditions are on two wheels compared to four. Fuel spills or even very slippery manhole covers can be lethal to riders. Neither of which mean a rider is driving like an idiot. Please don't be so stereotypical and ignorant.

KneeQuestion

thanks for that, it shows that the percentage quoted on here is wrong.

Its a well balanced report.

But the overriding message taken from the end is what we already know.

Drivers look harder.
Motor bike riders slow down.

Tiptop

Pompous much

So the message really needs to get out to bikers to slow down - that would eliminate up to a third of accidents straight away, and half of the rest - that's another third. While educating drivers to "think bike" will at best prevent a third of accidents

Not all of that third of bike to blame solo accidents are down to speed, you have just assumed that.

Absolutely, there is a message for bikers to slow down and not take risks.

No idea how you have come to the 'at best a third' in your last sentence?

jimjams is right - if the message a biker gets from this tragedy is "cars should look out for bikes", that's a very misguided and incredibly dangerous message to be sending out

It is worrying that you would think that is the message bikers are intended to get from this. Totally missing the point.

"If the car was turning across his path and he hit it, surely he would not have hit it if he was doing almost half the speed? He wouldn't have reached it, the car would have been out of his way. The difference between 60 and 100 is tremendous!"

I stand by what I said ^^ a couple of days ago. The car driver is guilty (if anything) of cutting it a bit fine. I don't think he had a chance of seeing a bike going at that speed, even if he had been looking really really carefully.

I am surprised at the conviction in this case, tbh.

You keep saying the motorcyclist wasn't at fault. At all. That it was completely the car's fault

The motorcyclist was at fault for speeding, I have said that numerous times. I have also said, his speed was not the cause of the accident.

Your arguments are very biased, and I don't think arguments like yours help the "bike aware" message, because you are excusing the inexcusable

What am I excusing?

YOU seem to be excusing the car drivers right of way violation, by persistently bringing up the motorcyclists speed.

The bike shouldn't have been in the position of the road he was in when the bike collided with the car

That is the crux of it. The bike rider made a manoeuvre he should never have made

No, my way of saying that was correct, not just in my opinion, but in the eyes of the law.

The bike had right of way, the car didn't, hence the accident being the car drivers fault irrespective of the bikers speed.

If David Holmes wasn't dead, you would expect that he would have been charged with dangerous driving after the accident.

The car driver had an obligation to check if the manoeuvre is safe. He failed to do so. Surely in that scenario you have to scan for oncoming traffic AND assess it's speed.

I agree with Maryz.

I understand what is meant when pp say the car driver should never have crossed the road, I understand that ultimately he is responsible lawfully for the accident because he did not have right of way.

I get that motorcyclists are killed even when driving sensibly by this kind of collision, I get that we should all Think Bike - but this motorcyclist was not driving sensibly and that has to be at the very least contributory to his own death.

Had he been obeying the speed limit my opinion about this particular accident would be different but as it is, I think the motorcyclist is absolutely as responsible as the car for causing the accident, and perhaps more responsible for causing his own death.

If the car was turning across his path and he hit it, surely he would not have hit it if he was doing almost half the speed? He wouldn't have reached it, the car would have been out of his way. The difference between 60 and 100 is tremendous!

Of course he would have hit it! or if not that car, in taking evasive action he would have hit something else.

The car driver had an obligation to check if the manoeuvre is safe. He failed to do so. Surely in that scenario you have to scan for oncoming traffic AND assess it's speed.

I agree with this. The cyclist is partially to blame; he shouldn't have been speeding. But, the car driver had the responsibility to assess whether it's safe to turn. It appears as though he didn't even pause. The cyclist was driving too fast, but he wasn't driving so fast the driver couldn't have seen him; he wasn't traveling faster than the speed of light.

Here in the US, the cyclist would have had the right of way, so the car driver would have been more at fault than the cyclist.

Hackmum said:
'Just watched the video - kind of wished I hadn't. As a car driver, this is one of the things that terrifies me - I leave in fear of making a mistake that will kill someone.'

Which pretty much sums up how I feel. Two days ago, I was in an outside lane which, just past some lights, filtered down to one. I was expecting to pass the car on my left when the lights went green (since it took off very slowly when the lights changed) and pull across. Luckily I checked my mirror, because I am a bit paranoid, because a motorbike had whizzed up the middle and was undercutting me. He was in exactly the space that I had expected to pull across into. If he knew the road, he would have known the lanes merged at that point, and was therefore taking a calculated risk. If he didn't know the road, he should have been a damn sight more careful. If I'd hit and injured or killed him, I'd never have forgiven myself.

I ride a bike, and I know how drivers can just blank cyclists, and I know that many accidents are the result of motorist rather than cyclist or biker error. In that video, it seems both biker and motorist were to blame. I think I agree with the people who say it was tragic for all concerned, but that it would be better to use that video in a speed awareness course for motorcyclists.

tiptops - from the report:
Overall, motorcyclists have been found to blame (or at least partly to blame) in around half of all the accidents they become involved in

Maryz the voice of reason as always.

Glad it was a car he hit and not a family out for a nice afternoon stroll after losing control whilst driving like a idiot.

Actually I have ridden pillion & I have cycled for years - so I am well aware of the dangers of car drivers not looking.

I have no problem at all with people (cars drivers lorry drivers or motorcyclists) driving sensibly & as carefully as they can. I do have problems with people driving at ridiculous speeds. Where I live bikers driving at ridiculous speeds is a common problem (probably because of the type of road, - there's one bit of road very close to me that bikers apparently travel here to ride at ridiculous speeds) & they do kill themselves regularly & occasionally others.

A recent horrific accident left a biker dead, a car driver dead, & his pillion passenger with life changing injuries. The biker was over the limit & on the wrong side of the road (he lost control at speed) & all his biker mates were quoted saying how he was best & safest rider they know. WTAF? Those riders may well be a minority (I hope so) but those attitudes need to change.

Therefore had he not overtaken, there would have been no accident.

That may well be true. It may also be true that if the car driver hadn't turned in front of him, there would have been no accident. I don't know about UK driving laws, all I know is that here in the US if you are turning, it's your responsibility to make sure the path is clear. The car driver didn't do that. They were both wrong, I don't know why people can't see that.

If he had not been speeding he wouldn't have hit the car, or been involved in any sort of accident at all. He would still have been behind the car he overtook

That car didn't hit the turning car

I have no idea, nor do you, what the other vehicles on the rd involvement was. we can assume no other cars were involved, but that is all.

Therefore had he not overtaken, there would have been no accident

He didn't overtake illegally. that was established upthread.

I'm really do wonder how you can't see that

because it means nothing?

I don't think anyone can dispute that the big picture message that is the purpose of this videos release, is a general one. yet still people here have been arguing that in their opinions, bikers die because they go too fast and that car drivers, even when they are in the wrong...aren't in the wrong

Even when presented with facts and statistics, that show something very different than you and many people here believe, you are still arguing?

I don't know about UK driving laws, all I know is that here in the US if you are turning, it's your responsibility to make sure the path is clear

Yes, it is the same here in the UK.

The cyclist's errors in judgment (speeding) don't negate the car driver's errors in judgment (failure to yield the right of way).

He did overtake illegally because he was doing 97mph.