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?

Exactly Maryz. Poor, poor driver

I've watched the video - it's tragic and sad and has evoked a lot of polarised responses. I also know that bit of road quite well as I'm local.

I do feel sorry for the driver. From knowing and looking at the stretch of road that it happened on, and seeing the video - it's easy to see how that kind of situation may happen.

Firstly, the bike hadn't long overtaken the car - the driver, presumably, would have looked to see that the car was a considerable distance away before looking to turn. It then, wouldn't have been expected to see a biker driving at 100mph. I noticed the article mentioned that the driver didn't see the car behind the rider, but I wonder if the swapping of vehicles may contribute to that.

Also, even if the driver had seen the biker momentarily, the biker was passing the car just before a junction - as a rule of common sense, I would automatically assume that if someone was to do that, they intended to turn right - that biker was very much on the right hand side of the road in the position that most would take to move into the "holding" lane to turn.

I also think that people are aware that bikers ride fast - but wouldn't expect it to happen at what appears to be a reasonably fluid time for traffic, during the day.

It's a combination of factors. Ultimately, the driver was charged and prosecuted and a man is dead. I would rather the tone of the article be placed at an equal sense of sadness/responsibility - it appears to highlight the need to be aware of bikers and mention the riders speed but sort of justify it by saying he was seen by other road users.

I agree with Maryz about how many drivers would probably react after being involved in such an awful accident.

For interest's sake, here is the sentencing tariff for the offence the driver pleaded guilty to.

DH was knocked off his bike two years ago. He was cycling, lights on, high vis jacket, helmet etc. It was 7am and the car driver was dazzled by a low sun. She drove straight through dh, knocking him into the path of two other cars. DH came round to hear the woman screaming "I've killed him, I didn't see him, I've killed him" and she admitted full liability immediately. DH was calming her down as the ambulance scooped him up and telling her not to worry. She didn't have a thought of solicitors or liability or mitigating factors. Poor woman was distraught.

Saintly, sorry for the delayed reaction - we're just off the A46. It's like a race track some weekends.

Ah no we're in the far south west. But the roads/population/police presence sounds similar (although according to the biker's forum I was reading there are far too many police near us spoiling their fun), and yes it's the same. I actually avoid the road and take a ferry/tiny country lanes to avoid the route because I'm fed up of nearly being mown down.

"I do feel sorry for the driver. From knowing and looking at the stretch of road that it happened on, and seeing the video - it's easy to see how that kind of situation may happen."

Do you think the driver should have seen the biker? Is the visibility at that point on the junction good? It would be a harsh conviction if not.

"I also think that people are aware that bikers ride fast - but wouldn't expect it to happen at what appears to be a reasonably fluid time for traffic, during the day."

I don't know, I've seen bikers and drivers tooling about on a variety of roads far too bloody quickly. Something about it doesn't feel right or fair, but it is your responsibility to give way to them just the same as someone driving sensibly. Clearly if their speed makes them appear from around a bend at mach 9, giving way isn't an option.

I don't think giving way was an option here either. The rider lost his right of way by speeding through a junction at 97mph.

Not a huge police presence here, saintly; large county, small population, so I think it will have to get worse before it gets better...

"I don't think giving way was an option here either."
It is an option if you can see the oncoming traffic.

"The rider lost his right of way by speeding through a junction at 97mph."
Wrong, both legally and morally.

Living here we see more than our fair share of idiot motorcyclists. They're stupid, selfish and intimidating.

It is an option if you can see the oncoming traffic.

The driver didn't see him because he was going at 97 mph, should every driver allow for the possibility of a near 100 mph biker at every junction? It's just not realistic.

wrong both legally and morally

I think legally it's a grey area but morally not so much. Do you really have the right of way no matter what you do? 150mph, still right of way? Would you still defend his right of way had others been killed or injured?

I think this campaign is a bit mis-judged but it has got people thinking which can only be a good thing.

I don't think there's a huge police presence here either goring (very rural) - I think they were objecting to a new type of average speed cameras which were trialled on that particular bit if road ( one of only two places in the UK to trial them - hmm wonder why that was chosen).

There's been another accident in this area involving motorcycles. Here.

Apparently two motorcyclists hit each other head on. No cars involved.

I did wonder if they were going so fast that they just didn't have time to react to one another. It's a very bendy undulating road. At least one of them must have been on the wrong side of the road.

Awful. And so unnecessary and avoidable.

For those saying it's the drivers fault - there are speed limits for a reason. There is a junction there, so the speed limit is in place to ensure people can afford to make mistakes and others can adjust. Same for 30 speed in residential areas. If everyone was going to do the exact correct thing all the time, you could do 70 down a busy high street...no-one would cross the road in front of you, no-one would turn out of a side street, no child would chase a ball into the road, no oap would lose balance on the pavement and stumble into the road. But we go slower so we can allow for those things happening.

Forgive me for repeating if this has been mentioned upthread but, what would have happened if the car driver had seen the bike late on, perhaps after he's started to turn, and then stopped. And the biker noticed the car sticking out, swerved to miss it, crashed and died.

Would the driver still be punished?

Doubt it Cultural, doubt he would have been punished (or at least not so harshly) had he gone to court and had the video played to him and a courtroom. As it was at the time he just thought it was as simple as "I've killed someone", felt horrendous and admitted blame immediately, and so was sentenced accordingly.

As a fellow biker, there's no doubt the guy was travelling far too fast for the road conditions. No doubt whatsoever. But for those that think it was his speed that caused the accident, the points made below provide sobering reading

Apologies for the cut and paste but it makes the point very well

From the video the car starts to move when the bike is about 5 hazard lines away. Each hazard line and space is 9 m. So the bike was 45m away when the car pulled out.

45 m at 97 mph takes 1.04 seconds. www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=45+m+at+97mph

45 m at 60 mph (the speed limit on a single carriageway) takes 1.68 seconds. www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=45+m+at+60mph

45 m at 50 mph (about half the speed he was doing) takes 2.01 seconds. www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=45+m+at+50mph

So the bike's excessive speed means he arrived 0.64 seconds sooner than he otherwise would if he'd been doing the speed limit, or 0.97 seconds sooner than if he'd been going at around half the speed. Look at how far across the junction the car was when the bike hit it. Would it have completely cleared the lane with a safe gap less than a second later? I don't think so.
So the car couldn't have to got out of the way in time. Could the bike have stopped in time?

The braking distance at 60 mph is 73 m. www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

The bike was closer than this when the car started to pull out.

The stopping distance at 50 mph is 53 m. www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

The bike was closer than this when the car started to pull out.
So even at half the speed the bike would likely still have hit the car. And he would still most probably have died or been crippled.

Hence, IMO, the car driver was largely to blame, as their actions would still have caused death or serious injury even had the motorcycle been travelling at less than the legal speed limit.

So the bike's excessive speed means he arrived 0.64 seconds sooner than he otherwise would if he'd been doing the speed limit

No, he would not have arrived there at all when the car did if he was travelling the speed limit for his entire journey. He would only have arrived 0.64 seconds later than he did if he was travelling at 97mph for his journey (which he was) and then dropped to the NSL as he travelled through this piece of road.

truffle That's a massively contrived argument. The only reason anyone is ever in an accident is because they moved through time at a particular speed. Any faster, any slower, we could argue would gave avoided every accident ever. Of course, the equivalent number of new accidents would appear in their place.

You might as well argue that if he'd gone a bit faster, then he'd have been past the junction by the time the car got there.