Probably why I won't ride a crotch rocket

Glaucus · 12 Jun 2009 at 15:59

Persil said:
And you know this how ? You have no idea if he checked those ..Or was on the phone or arguing with his Mrs .

Persil

And how do you know he didn't look signal and do it perfectly?

Is it not reasonable to assume that even if he did look and do it properly that it wouldn't of made any difference due to closing speed far in excess of 45feet per second and being in numerous blind spots.

Freefaller · 12 Jun 2009 at 16:02

That's why I assume all car drivers are blind ****s and never trust anything they do. It's a good point AH2 - you just don't know.

Mr Jack · 12 Jun 2009 at 16:02

Housey said:
The car (and the bike) were overtaking on a single lane road, with a chevron sectioned middle area, where there was oncoming traffic, where such a move relied on other drivers to be 100% observant and supportive.

The only car that needed to do anything to make the move possible was the white car, which had already done so before he pulls over to overtake.

Had the idiot biker not being behaving incredibly dangerously, he'd have pulled off the move without causing harm to anyone. The drive of the white oncoming vehicle would have muttered to his passenger about what a tool the pug driver was; and the driver of the white car would have muttered about lunatics on out roads.

And no-one would have been harmed.

Personally, I wouldn't make the move the pug driver did - but, and this is the key point, it was only turned into an accident because of the idiotic way the biker was behaving.

McMav · 12 Jun 2009 at 16:03

Rider was at fault. You cannot blame the driver of the car for a bike travelling at over 100 MPH overtaking him while he is signaling that he is overtaking.

Cut and dry case. Still a shame the guy died however had he not been riding in that manner he would still be here.

james.miller · 12 Jun 2009 at 16:04

AcidHell2 said:
And how do you know he didn't look signal and do it perfectly?

Is it not reasonable to assume that even if he did look and do it properly that it wouldn't of made any difference due to closing speed far in excess of 45feet per second and being in numerous blind spots.

well, the bike was travelling at about 145ft/second. if that car was doing 60mph, which is about 88ft/second, i make that close to 60ft/second closing speed. which would be about right actually - about 4 car lengths in one second which i mentioned earlier. I think the math is correct

peterattheboro · 12 Jun 2009 at 16:05

Freefaller said:
You must have amazing eye sight as I couldn't tell from the video posted that he/she did all that.

I'm not saying the bike rider is blame free - it was a stupid overtake by him too, but the car shouldn't have overtaken. Although those road markings say do not cross unless necessary - that means that if there is an obstruction or a slow convoy or an EXCEPTIONAL circumstance you can cross that line, but on such a road, doing that overtake (by the car) is foolish. The car doesn't have the power to perform a safe overtake in such a situation, not with the oncoming traffic bearing down on him.

IMO it's 50/50 - but let's face it the biker died, so he doesn't really "win" out of this does he.

Bikes are SO SO quick, loud and very easy to see, but they do creep up on you if you're not observant - that's one thing 9/10 car drivers are not.

Do bikers not have to obey the roadmarkings and roadsigns etc?

Glaucus · 12 Jun 2009 at 16:07

Ignore

Flukester · 12 Jun 2009 at 16:08

peterattheboro said:
Do bikers not have to obey the roadmarkings and roadsigns etc?

both car and bike were disobeying them.. it's not a 3 lane road. you cant overtake at high speed when there is traffic oncoming

rsatd · 12 Jun 2009 at 16:08

Grad said:
More footage of riding before the crash

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn7R3RScL28

Wow, some of the stuff the bloke with the camera does makes me poop my pants. Doesn't stop me from riding though, mainly because I know I would never go that fast or do such crazy overtakes. But that's just me being scared ****less of other car drivers and my lack of "skills"

scottman · 12 Jun 2009 at 16:19

RIP to the bike rider.

I drive cars and ride motorbikes, love my motorbike to bits, completely different to a car

TBH it was a bit stupid overtaking at that kind of speed because as you can see the biker didnt have enough room to brake, BUT the car driver should have spotted the bike, and what a fool for even thinking about over taking that car when it was a narrow over take....thats the thing with car drivers that never have been on a bike before, they haven't a clue, totally oblivious to anything outside of their 4 walls. Driver should have noticed, thats what mirrors and shoulder checks are for

Freefaller · 12 Jun 2009 at 16:20

peterattheboro said:
Do bikers not have to obey the roadmarkings and roadsigns etc?

Yes they do - and they both are guilty of it - though the bike could have filtered past without crossing the lines, though at reasonably high speed like he was doing was probably not sensible and could have been done for dangerous driving potentially.

However, if we're getting down to semantics about overtaking, bikes will always be the safest vehicle to be in to overtake purely owing to the phenomenal acceleration and the minimal TED they have. The car should never have even attempted an overtake even on a single dashed line as there was no way he'd have done a safe overtake.

Snaggle · 12 Jun 2009 at 16:20

Well with the new vid on youtube you can clearly see the the car indicated at the last second and pulled out and the biker as i had assumed previously didnt go for a wide overtake to miss the overtaking car but did brake . So im even more inclined to say that car driver was at fault .

Im sure most peeps wont agree but thats my opinion .

Persil

mjt · 12 Jun 2009 at 16:23

haven't read the whole thread as i cba, but wtf was that 'hatchback' doing?!

it's like he saw the biker coming and intentionally got in his way..?
there's no way the car could have done a safe overtake there

rsatd · 12 Jun 2009 at 16:23

Persil said:
Im sure most peeps wont agree but thats my opinion .

I would say both, biker guy was also going way too fast and overtaking where I would not feel comfortable doing the same, but then I actually prefer to ride slow, more enjoyable for me

.

Housey · 12 Jun 2009 at 16:30

Mr Jack said:
The only car that needed to do anything to make the move possible was the white car, which had already done so before he pulls over to overtake.

Had the idiot biker not being behaving incredibly dangerously, he'd have pulled off the move without causing harm to anyone. The drive of the white oncoming vehicle would have muttered to his passenger about what a tool the pug driver was; and the driver of the white car would have muttered about lunatics on out roads.

And no-one would have been harmed.

Personally, I wouldn't make the move the pug driver did - but, and this is the key point, it was only turned into an accident because of the idiotic way the biker was behaving.

Both were bad overtakes, you can debate the rest until you are blue in the face but that's how I call it.

Totality · 12 Jun 2009 at 16:47

Mr Jack said:
Had the idiot biker not being behaving incredibly dangerously, he'd have pulled off the move without causing harm to anyone. The drive of the white oncoming vehicle would have muttered to his passenger about what a tool the pug driver was; and the driver of the white car would have muttered about lunatics on out roads.

And no-one would have been harmed.

Huh? You're argument goes both ways if you change a few words...!!

If the idiot DRIVER had not forced the car in front to pull over so he could overtake into oncoming traffic the biker would have pulled off the move without causing harm to anyone. The driver of the white oncoming vehicle would have muttered to his passenger about what a tool the biker was; and the driver of the white car would have muttered about lunatics on our roads.

And no-one would have been harmed.

It took two people to cause the crash so both were to blame using your argument.

McMav · 12 Jun 2009 at 18:02

End of the day the biker was doing close to 100 mph if he wasnt he'd still be here. He got it wrong and died because of it.

Sankari · 12 Jun 2009 at 18:06

Fact: if the biker had been riding at a legal speed and maintained an appropriate distance between himself and the car in front, he'd still be alive today.

Totality said:
If the idiot BIKER had not tried to squeeze between an overtaking car and a van on the opposite side of the road at the illegal and utterly reckless speed of 100mph, he would not have hit the hatchback and bounced into the path of the van.

Fixed.

Zip · 12 Jun 2009 at 18:23

The people in the van will have it pretty bad.

There will be no way in the rest of there life will they forget the thud of a person giong under there wheels

Seeing it would have been bad enough but then there would be the feel and the noise of the van going over him. Its going to haunt them for ever i would say

Anyway, down here if you are on the road and in a crash that you did not cause you are still at fault(I think 15%) just for being on the road.
Then they add up who did what and then work out who was at fault the most. Thats what a Ex Detective advanced Driving instructor told me anyway.

Burned_Alive · 12 Jun 2009 at 18:29

peterattheboro said:
Seriously?

How on earth is that the car drivers fault? He checks his mirror, checks his blindspot and see's that it's clear. The bike is going far far far too fast. Fast enough to suddenly jump into the drivers blindspot in a matter of seconds.

At 100 mph he's doing 44.70400 meters per second, which means he travels the length of the 407 he overtook in a generous 0.11 seconds, maybe even 0.55 seconds if you include the gap front and back as two car lengths (which it wasnt). There's absolutely no way the car he hit could've seen him or reacted to him in 0.55 seconds.

Plus, it doesnt matter if you're right or wrong, if you're dead.