Page 20 | to actually feel sorry for the driver of the car? WARNING- upsetting video.

ToThePark · 2014-09-04T20:55:46+00:00

Ok, so I've been a wimp and name changed in case I get totally flamed. [[http://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?

AgaPanthers · 09/09/2014 15:14

"But for those that think it was his speed that caused the accident, the points made below provide sobering reading"

Not particularly, no. The point here is the biker's driving was shit from the beginning, he drove along at vastly in excess of the speed limit from the beginning, he overtook too close to a junction (against the Highway Code), and he failed, due to his excessive speed, to react to an obvious hazard, namely a car that was turning.

In that spot I am assuming the car is going to turn.

There were TWO shit drivers here. Good driving can't always save you from shit driving, but it will a lot of the time.

Radicalrooster · 09/09/2014 15:52

it is absolutely irrelevant what speed the rider was travelling at during any earlier stage of his journey. What matters in this instance is the speed he was travelling at when he approached the car. The maths makes quite clear (and this is no doubt the reason as to why the hugely experienced crash investigators charged the car driver) is that had the motorcyclist been travelling at 60 mph on that stretch of road at the point the car made its manoeuvre, he would still have hit the car.

Radicalrooster · 09/09/2014 15:58

And yes, I would also assume the car was going to turn. But the fact that it did, into the path of an oncoming vehicle that would have been easy to see (FJR 1300 - huge bike with massive twin headlights that would have been on automatically) is inexcusable. And although I'd have probably slowed to 50 and edged to the left, as the analysis shows, because the car turns so late the braking distance would still have been too great to avoid hitting what would have probably been the rear centre of the vehicle - which would have meant a direct head impact into the side of that vehicle.

Like I said, the biker is travelling far too fast. But even at half the speed there would probably have been an accident, and there would have been absolutely no doubt as to who was culpable.

Radicalrooster · 09/09/2014 16:00

And yes, I would also assume the car was going to turn. But the fact that it did, into the path of an oncoming vehicle that would have been easy to see (FJR 1300 - huge bike with massive twin headlights that would have been on automatically) is inexcusable. And although I'd have probably slowed to 50 and edged to the left, as the analysis shows, because the car turns so late the braking distance would still have been too great to avoid hitting what would have probably been the rear centre of the vehicle - which would have meant a direct head impact into the side of that vehicle.

Like I said, the biker is travelling far too fast. But even at half the speed there would have been an accident that may well have ended in a fatality, and there would have been absolutely no doubt as to who was culpable.

Radicalrooster · 09/09/2014 16:02

Apologies for double post.

I'm not here to paint bikers in any particular light. But as a regular car driver, motorcyclist and cyclist I've got a fair idea of how each set of road users operates, and how they need to account for certain risks

MrsPatrickDempsey · 09/09/2014 16:08

But the clip showed how quickly the junction came into view because of the speed at which the bike was travelling. Surely the driver would have only seem the bike at the last minute and it would have been too late to react - or am am misjudging?

MsAdorabelleDearheartVonLipwig · 09/09/2014 16:43

If the bike had stuck to the speed limit for the duration of his journey he would not have been there when the car turned.

MaidOfStars · 09/09/2014 16:49

If the bike had stuck to the speed limit for the duration of his journey he would not have been there when the car turned

But someone else might have been.

I don't understand this line of thinking at all. Sure, you can say that this particular biker wouldn't have been involved in the accident, but how can you say that the accident wouldn't have happened with a different victim? And what if the biker had stuck to the speed limit for the duration of his journey, which meant he was in an accident further back on the road?

It's a bit abstract, isn't it?

KneeQuestion · 09/09/2014 16:53

The car driver had a potential 7 seconds to see the bike.

The car was stationary while in view of the bike, then it made the right turn.

KneeQuestion · 09/09/2014 16:54

The 7 potential seconds figure comes from one of the statements made by police/in court, can't remember where I read it, so can't link.

MrsPatrickDempsey · 09/09/2014 17:27

I would be interested to understand the ' potential 7 seconds ' theory. And surely a potential 7 seconds isn't the same as actually having 7 seconds? I just can't see it from the clip.

Osmiornica · 09/09/2014 17:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

naty1 · 09/09/2014 18:09

I was going to say the same Osm.

I think the issue is appearing from behind a much slower vehicle.
Look up see car going 50. Start moving, bike coming at 100.
So the combination of overtaking and then continuing to speed.

Not sure of your analysis as the car overtaken didnt i assume get involved in the accident so was able to stop. So going NSL from overtaking he would most likely have been able to stop/avoid the car pulling out.

I think the car drivers are saying please dont bike ride like this- overtaking and then speeding at 100 towards a junction. As it is possible you are not visible when they check the road.(this could be the case with a speeding car too)
Part of stopping distance is usually that the car in front is braking too, giving you extra space.

trufflesnout · 09/09/2014 18:34

It was a point made earlier on by others, Maid, Rooster and Ingrid. But yes I guess it is quite abstract.

Tbh the same points are just being repeated now and I still think the motorcyclist was doomed from the start, and yes, responsible for his own death.

BomChickaMeowMeow · 11/09/2014 14:07

It is difficult to judge speed at distance.

I turned right onto a main road about 50 metres from a roundabout today and the road from me to the roundabout was clear. By the time I'd pulled out and started to go there was a white Mercedes from nowhere right up my bumper- must have been approaching on the other side of the roundabout as I turned out at a good deal more than 30 mph (the speed limit on that side) - he then overtook and zoomed off so there was near miss or anything.

I just think it is easy to think "the road is clear" and in the back of your mind you see something in the distance but do a quick calculation that at the correct speed for the road you have plenty of time to turn.

So the answer is, certainly look and look again when making a manoeuvre, but moreover DON'T FUCKING SPEED.

BomChickaMeowMeow · 11/09/2014 14:07

wasn't a near miss.

BomChickaMeowMeow · 11/09/2014 14:16

^I don't understand this line of thinking at all. Sure, you can say that this particular biker wouldn't have been involved in the accident, but how can you say that the accident wouldn't have happened with a different victim? And what if the biker had stuck to the speed limit for the duration of his journey, which meant he was in an accident further back on the road?

It's a bit abstract, isn't it?^

No it's quite easy to understand. The bike approached much faster than the car driver anticipated, because the bike was travelling at nearly twice the speed limit and it's more difficult to see bikes at a distance and certainly to judge speed. So if the bike had been going at the speed limit he'd have been further back down the road and the car driver would have made the turn safely. If someone else had been closer when the car driver turned then if they had been travelling at normal speed all the way down the road then the driver would have seen them and not made the turn. Don't speed and take your time.

HTH.

LatteLoverLovesLattes · 11/09/2014 14:48

I just watched the video. I knew roughly what to expect, but it still totally took my breath away. Him shouting 'Nooo' at the end. I don't know how his poor parents have been able to watch that :(

The motorcyclist was in the wrong, riding at nearly 100 miles an hour with that much traffic and cars turning across a main road like that, it was absolute stupidity. Sadly he paid the price for that stupidity.

The driver was equally at fault, there was no reason not to have seen the bike and waited.

It would be interesting to know (sorry, it may have been mentioned, I haven't read the whole thead yet) if the police have said if it would have happened if the rider had been travelling at 60mph.

Awful, just awful :(

MaidOfStars · 11/09/2014 16:54

Bom No need for the PA HTH, mostly you've not actually enlightened my point in any way

The post I was replying to was:
If the bike had stuck to the speed limit for the duration of his journey he would not have been there when the car turned

This is a different premise to that which you have "corrected" me on. This premise - the one my argument applies to - is that had the driver not sped at any point on his journey, he wouldn't have been anywhere near the accident location. True, but someone else might have been, or he might have been involved in an accident further back. Which is all rather abstract, a fact which the original poster I was addressing has since agreed with.

BomChickaMeowMeow · 11/09/2014 18:25

It was me who raised the original argument though so I was perfectly correct in defending it. It's a shame you have failed to understand the point I and others were making.

MaidOfStars · 11/09/2014 22:35

Sorry Bom, I don't see your first post addressing the rather abstract idea that had the driver been driving at the speed limit for the duration of his journey, he wouldn't have even been in the vicinity of the junction at the time the car turned across.