Probably why I won't ride a crotch rocket

gt_junkie · 12 Jun 2009 at 14:53

The terminal speed looked to be up to 100mph just before the crash. Amazing how quickly these things can get up to speed. :eek:

Bike had no chance of slowing and avoiding the car. In fact, if you notice, the camera bike gets off the throttle a chunk of time before the collision. He saw it coming yet his mate didn't.

Very unfortunate.

gt

Housey · 12 Jun 2009 at 14:53

I would estimate the car that pulled out was probably going quite a bit quicker than the car he was pulling out from behind due to the distance he is from the vehicles coming in the other direction. He must have felt he could have got around and back in but I suspect his move too was dangerous.

PiKe · 12 Jun 2009 at 14:53

jaybee said:
But I can see bikers coming a mile off when they are at top speed (170mph+) let alone 100mph. If anything they are easier to spot quickly due to the difference in speed they are travelling past things. I just don't get how you don't see a bike coming. Obviously I still used to ride with it in mind that I was invisible to car drivers, which sadly this guy did not do.

He probably saw him, but didn't anticipate just how fast he was approaching.

jaybee · 12 Jun 2009 at 14:53

AcidHell2 said:
But he hasn't broken any laws and has not driven in a dangerous way.

Hasn't broken any laws officially I agree, which is why it is upsetting that it can be allowed. They have driven dangerously. It's not all their fault, but atleast half of the blame should be with the car driver.

Snaggle · 12 Jun 2009 at 14:54

He may be close to the blindspot of the car he is about to overtake but since he never hit that car and and has 3+ feet to the right of said car the next car infront if he checked his mirrors would have been visable

Persil

Housey · 12 Jun 2009 at 14:54

...and that road is NOT a safe road for a car to overtake with oncoming traffic, hence the road markings.

Glaucus · 12 Jun 2009 at 14:55

jaybee said:
I have poor eye sight and need glasses ironically. It's not hard to use your mirrors is it.

God.

How hard is this for you. As posted in the pic. He is clearly sat behind the car2 as such car1(the car he crashed into) has no chance of seeing him regardless of mirrors.

jaybee · 12 Jun 2009 at 14:55

PiKe said:
He probably saw him, but didn't anticipate just how fast he was approaching.

Fair point, I guess having ridden a bike and being into them I appreciate how quickly they can be up beside me.

jamief · 12 Jun 2009 at 14:57

The bike that crashed was probably going about 115+ mph.

The car maybe shouldn't have overtaken, but it was nobodys fault but the biker. Had he been obeying the speed limit he would be alive today.

Snaggle · 12 Jun 2009 at 14:57

gt_junkie said:
The terminal speed looked to be up to 100mph just before the crash. Amazing how quickly these things can get up to speed.

Bike had no chance of slowing and avoiding the car. In fact, if you notice, the camera bike gets off the throttle a chunk of time before the collision. He saw it coming yet his mate didn't.

Very unfortunate.

gt

Not so .. if you are chasing you have to go faster than the car/bike in front . Watch any police chase where a car/bike has passed them speeding .. to catch up they have to do 130 even though there only doing 90 .

I would say the car that pulled out was doing 60+ (he was going for an overtake so going faster and bike was doing 90ish .

Persil

Flukester · 12 Jun 2009 at 14:57

Been playing video again and again...

Bikers were overtaking without even crossing into the hatchings, and not the oncoming lane which should be used for overtake ?. Technically they were filtering, but at a illegal speed.

Car would have looked behind and only seen bikes appearing in his lane, and assumed they were not overtaking.

Car then performs illegal overtake, overtaking in the hatchings as oncoming lane has van in it, creating a 3rd lane just for himself ?, hits biker

As far as I know those center hatchings are to keep traffic apart, not to use as a 3rd overtaking lane.

Biker should not of performed filtering at 80+ MPH

50/50 I rekon

Fireskull · 12 Jun 2009 at 14:57

Biker aside that overtake was dodgy! he is making cars on both sides of the road make room for him, I have seen people being done for less than that on all these police shows on TV, specially as they are wider vehicles coming at him, and he was not even be along side the other car before the oncoming cars are on him.
Hell in your test you fail outright if you make any other vehice move because of your actions.
Just because it looks wide enough for 3 vehicles dont mean its safe.

jamief · 12 Jun 2009 at 14:58

Persil said:
Not so .. if you are chasing you have to go faster than the car/bike in front . Watch any police chase where a car/bike has passed them speeding .. to catch up they have to do 130 even though there only doing 90 .

I would say the car that pulled out was doing 60+ (he was going for an overtake so going faster and bike was doing 90ish .

Persil

The biker filming is clearly slowing down when the crash happens, and he is going 100mph. His mate who crashes is accelerating away from him at that point, so doing 115mph or so.

jaybee · 12 Jun 2009 at 14:58

AcidHell2 said:
God.

How hard is this for you. As posted in the pic. He is clearly sat behind the car2 as such car1(the car he crashed into) has no chance of seeing him regardless of mirrors.

Agree to disagree then, there is no excuse for failing to observe that bike coming and I disagree he was hidden for enough time to affect being able to spot him. He is out in the middle of the road as persil said. You'd have to be a t**t for not spotting it.
I think the biker who died, saw it happening but thought the only way at that speed and commitment to avoid it was to continue with the overtake and try to get round. Sometimes that is the right decision, not this time.

Glaucus · 12 Jun 2009 at 14:59

jaybee said:
Agree to disagree then, there is no excuse for failing to observe that bike coming and I disagree he was hidden for enough time to affect being able to spot him. He is out in the middle of the road as persil said. You'd have to be a t**t for not spotting it.
I think the biker who died, saw it happening but thought the only way at that speed and commitment to avoid it was to continue with the overtake and try to get round. Sometimes that is the right decision, not this time.

Look at the angles, he is way inside the correct line, just a few feet behind that car. So unless you have x-ray vision the line of sights just do not add up.

jaybee · 12 Jun 2009 at 15:01

Regardless of all this anyway, what the duck was that car driver doing with that overtake?

a) He wasn't getting round in time before having a head on or near head on himself
b) It's illegal as marked by the middle road markings

BigDannyO · 12 Jun 2009 at 15:02

Just came back from a site visit and very nearly had exactly the same thing happen to me.

On a nice wide single carriageway bypass, stuck behind a tractor doing about 20mph. Had an impatient 7.5tonne truck right up my jacksie blocking the view from my offside wing mirror.

So I decide to steadily move over towards the opposite lane to try and have a look past the truck, and just as I'm moving accross I catch a glimpse of the headlight of the bike that's doing what I would estimate at least 30-40mph OVER my speed.

There was absolutely no way he could have seen me in front of the truck and therefore the tractor in front of me.

Luckily I was paying attention and managed to swerve fully back into my lane, but it was certainly a :eek:

moment, and this video was the very first thing that sprang to my mind.

Glaucus · 12 Jun 2009 at 15:02

Flukester said:
Car then performs illegal overtakeg

it is not illegal

109: Areas of white diagonal stripes or chevrons painted on the road. These are to separate traffic lanes or to protect traffic turning right.

If the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so.

See how it says should not rather that MUST not and as such is not illegal.

gt_junkie · 12 Jun 2009 at 15:02

jaybee said:
But I can see bikers coming a mile off when they are at top speed (170mph+) let alone 100mph. If anything they are easier to spot quickly due to the difference in speed they are travelling past things. I just don't get how you don't see a bike coming. Obviously I still used to ride with it in mind that I was invisible to car drivers, which sadly this guy did not do.

It's not speed as much as time though? When you check a mirror and there's nothing that could reasonably reach you then you should reasonably manouvre.

The simple answer isn't simply to say check your mirrors (of course this could cause other types of crashes through not looking ahead!

) perhaps it's check your excessive speed and/or acceleration.

Surprising 1.5+ tonnes on nothing more than an engine on wheels isn't what i'd want to do.

gt

Flukester · 12 Jun 2009 at 15:05

AcidHell2 said:
it is not illegal

See how it says should not rather that MUST not and as such is not illegal.

It's two lane road with hatchings, the car was performing an overtake that converted it to 3 lane (not allowed)

You only overtake when there is no oncoming traffic, not when you think you can squeeze down the middle

Bikes can legally filter (overtake without crossing white lines), but not at that speed.

I think the law is a real grey area sometimes. Should not and Must not should mean same thing