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?

Department of Transport figures are that motorbikes account for less than 1% of road users, but 19% of road deaths.

To put that another way, less than 1 in 100 hundred people on the roads ride a motorbike, but nearly 1 in 5 of those killed on the roads do.

Motorbikes are inherently unsafe and instead of countless costly campaigns, we should be looking at ways of actively reducing their numbers, because that's the only way to truly reduce the number of fatalities.

I think the sentence on the driver was extremely harsh and I doubt he was of a sound frame of mind when he admitted to being at fault.

Car drivers are often dreadful when they see bikes coming, I've been on the back when they pull out to the middle of the road to stop bikers legally overtaking them in slow traffic.
I have two friends who were knocked off their bike, the one riding lost a leg and his GF on the back lost hers from the knee down.
Another friend lost the use of his right leg and lost his arm after being hit by an overtaking lorry.
Another was killed outright on the A1.

I doubt he was of a sound frame of mind when he admitted to being at fault

His admitting it makes no difference, he was at fault, as evidenced by the motorcyclists headcam video.

The biker was on the right side of the road, he may well have been speeding but the car driver should have been able to judge that it wasn't safe to turn.

What a terrible, shocking thing to watch

I have to say that while the car driver made a mistake / was careless, the biker made the conscious decision to drive 30mph over the speed limit. That was not a mistake.

Of course I'm not saying it was his fault or he deserved it and the car driver could / should have taken more care. But his part was a mistake. The biker's part in the accident was not.

Having said that of course it's just awful for everybody involved. His poor mother.

I'm okay with the driver having missed seeing him & therefore being at fault but very much struggling with the idea of the biker being at no fault when he was driving like an absolute lunatic. Is anyone saying that? I wonder what would have been found had he lived? And what if he had hit something else crossing his path who had also not spotted him - eg a pedestrian, or a horse & rider. Who would have been found to be at fault then? Pedestrian/rider or motorcyclist driving at ridiculous speeds.

I do think anyone driving at 100mph on a public road needs to understand they are risking their lives & the lives of other road users.

Sppeding accounts for a massive %age of road fatalities and has killed far far more people than drink or dugged driving over the years. Yet speeding is still seen as socially acceptable by many people (including a lot of bikers)

Accidents on rural roads also account for a disproportionate amount of fatalities. They are far far more dangerous than motorways, or even urban roads (where more accidents happen but usually at lower speeds)

I think the video and the verdict make it seem like speeding is acceptable. His mum says something along the lines of "he loved his speed" "people need to keep a better look out".
The judge basically implied that the speed he was travelling was irrelevant.
He was more than 50% over the speed limit. The cyclist was breaking the law and because of that, contributed to an accident . He was partly to blame.

Does anyone know how the brain fails to spot bikers? I don't think it's entirely drivers being careless, I think it is quite hard to see them unless you make a deliberate attempt. Which clearly everyone should.

Is it because drivers are automatically scanning for car-shaped things?

People make mistakes and accidents happen. Driving at 97mph is is not an accident.

It's a horrific video. It's such a shame for everyone involved.

I am confused by the police approach that seems to place all the blame with the driver and act as though the motorcyclist speeding and overtaking near a junction are of no consequence. The accident wouldn't have happened if the motorcyclist hadn't overtaken so close to a junction at such high speeds.

I also can't help but wonder what would have happened if someone had stepped out on to the road, or a ball had bounced on to the road, or a child had ran out, because the motorcyclist was going so fast that it would have been impossible for him to take evasive action regardless of what kind of obstacle he faced.

I think the campaign sends a skewed message that bikes can speed and drive recklessly but ultimately it will be someone else's responsibility if that results in an accident or fatality.

The bike was in lane way before the driver made the turn.

The question is in my mind is: if the bike hadn't been there, was the driver turning illegally? I don't think he was, because he would have been clear of the car that the bike had just overtaken. And since the bike shouldn't have been there, in my opinion the biker was wrong

He was in lane, so how should he not have been there?

The driver was at fault in turning when he did, because he should have seen him and he would have, if he had looked in the oncoming direction before he turned.

It's tragic that he lost his life; of course it is. But he simply shouldn't have been there

Bizarre.

The national speed limit on a single carriageway road is 60mph, unless signed otherwise

On thinking about it further, I'm surprised the family have released it, because if it had been the other way around (the driver had died and the biker had survived), the biker would have had the book thrown at him, and rightly so

The driver would still, in the exact same circumstances. been found at fault, because he was at fault.

"Unfortunately, another part of the problem is that car drivers are busy looking out for vehicles larger than theirs"

I think that is an issue. We look for something that will pose a threat to us rather than seeing us as a threat to something else. Hence the need for the 'think bike' campaign.

However there was no justification for the speed that the bikes was going.

According to this anything over 85 in a 60 is an instant ban

According to that, there is a risk of an instant ban, it is not a definite.

knee do you see the biker as being at no fault in this accident? I understand that the car driver should have spotted him - and therefore has to shoulder some blame, but surely the motorcyclist driving like a lunatic also contributed. I've had a look at accident reports near here involving motorbikes and speed is mentioned as a contributing factor in all the cases I've looked at (I mean where a biker was travelling too fast - obviously not in the case of accidents where they weren't). I wonder what they would have found had the bike hit the car in the passenger door (with a passenger in it).

edam - I suspect you're right, although I think anything travelling at ludicrous speeds is hard to spot. A couple of weeks ago I pulled away from a traffic light junction (I was the first car) on a straight road, and somewhere between red/amber and me pulling away a car appeared on the outside lane at enormous speed (I would say 90+ mph) and the first I knew of him was as he overtook. I had checked in my mirrors, but didn't see him until he was alongside/going past me. Fucking idiot. My passenger and I exclaimed WOAH at the same time.

I agree with you Knee and it's also very unlikely that the car driver would have died in the collision.
The bike was in the right lane before he got to the junction, he wasn't overtaking on a junction, he overtook the white car before the junction.
I agree with whoever said the sentence is harsh but I still see the car driver as being the one at fault.
He should have seen the bike coming and he should have waited.

If the biker had killed someone he would have been at fault of their death because his speed would have contributed to the forces involved and the other person's death. A lower speed crash may not have led to a fatality. If he'd hit the passenger door it's highly likely he would have killed any passenger.

Knee if the biker had been driving at the speed limit then he wouldn't have been at that point in the road when the car turned. That's why a PP said he shouldn't have been there.

If we assume the other cars were travelling close to the speed limit then the car that the biker overtakes shows the point where the turning car would expect a vehicle to be. The motorcycle is much further ahead at the point of collision (roughly 0.025 miles further down the road - and that's a distance which would have given the car ample opportunity to turn.)