Probably why I won't ride a crotch rocket

[SDK^]

The car driver should have looked in his mirrors.
The bike rider shouldn't be doing a 100mph overtake on that road.

Bike rider has more to lose

If you're taking those sorts of risks then it's only a matter of time before it’s going to end in tragedy.

Save it for a track day

 

[Glaucus]

The car driver should have looked in his mirrors.
The bike rider shouldn't be doing a 100mph overtake on that road.

he may well of.

The car that pulled out was tailgating car in front, and decided to pull out extremely fast for (illegal) overtake.. (there was oncoming traffic, it's not a 3 way carriage way)

because the rider was travelling al totally illegal speeds.

the case should show you who was at fault, the rider. If the police thought that the driver could have and was expected to see him, then he would have been done. However due to the video and the speeds involved. It was not reasonable or likely for the car driver to spot or react. As such it is the riders fault and only the riders fault.

You can argue that if the driver hadn't overtaken it wouldn't of happened. But then if the rider hadn't been doing 90+ or overtaking it also wouldn't of happened.

what this comes down to is what is reasonably expected of the driver and the rider. It's not reasonable to expect the driver to see and react to something he probably couldn't even see.

 

[Freefaller]

LOL? If he'd been riding at a legal speed and maintaining an appropriate distance between himself and the driver in front, how would you estimate his chances of getting killed? "High"? "Very high"? "Inevitable"? Or "unlikely"?

He was trying to overtake an overtaking car at 100mph in the face of oncoming traffic. Recipe for disaster. He clipped the back of the car because he was moving too fast and didn't gauge his distance properly. That was his own fault; not the fault of the car driver, who had clearly indicated his intention to overtake (which the biker chose to ignore) and had no chance of dodging the biker even if he'd had time to see him.

The biker attempted an insanely dangerous manoeuvre at an illegal speed. He had it coming.

No he clipped the car because the car pulled out on him. :/

 

[Glaucus]

No he clipped the car because the car pulled out on him. :/

or the car pulled out first and he clipped the car due to doing a stupid speed and not having any reaction time.

 

[Freefaller]

Yes but 100mph isn't exactly quick, and the bike had his headlamp on. Ok it is illegal speed I admit, but I see bikes coming up behind me and I check my blind spot. Secondly you don't over take by tailgating someone then pulling out, you drop back make sure the road is clear to build up the speed to minimise TED. And pulling out at the last minute with oncoming traffic is stupid. The bike CAN get away with it because it doesn't take up much room, can accelerate faster than any car and was overtaking quickly, to minimise the overtaking manoeuvre. Sure he was cruising at illegal speeds too, but let's be honest here, who sticks at the speed limit rigidly? And so what, it's his licence, and his decision, which unfortunately ended up costing his life - but his speed had little to do with it, had he overtaken at 70 (which frankly is stupid, why overtake so slowly?!) he'd still have been clipped, and thedriver would still have been overtaking stupidly.

 

[Glaucus]

so he had his headlamp on, no help if the biker is hidden behind a car. 100 is a stupid speed on such a road if it was a motorway then that would be different. Closing speed of at least 60 feet per second I would say.

The speed had everything to do with it. if he was doing 70
A)The driver would more than likely of seen him
B) the biker could have reacted.

And I would say the biker hit him. Not the car clipped him. he went into the back. Not the rear quarter.

Luckily the police don't expect drivers to have x-ray vision and look in their rear view mirrors for seconds at a time.

 

[Wilderbeast]

Yes but 100mph isn't exactly quick, and the bike had his headlamp on.

100mph isn't quick on the public highway? Thats insane...

From that video, the car had already started the maneuver so he wouldn't be checking his mirrors again for anything let alone something that fast, be honest do you look in your mirrors after you have pulled out to over take?

Bikers think that its totally the cars drivers responsibility to look for the biker, when its not, its not anyones job to look for hazards such as bikes doing way over the speed limit trying to get the "god like" achievement for most cars overtaken in a single maneuver. The roads would be even worse if you expected everyone to spend 50% of their time looking in the mirrors for bikes that may or may not be there, and if you do see one, you then have to make a second look to see if hes going ballistic with the right hand?

I had a simple rule that i always followed on my bike:

Do not overtake until your absolutely sure that the car/truck/van/bus knows that you're there and that you're about to overtake. Its not rocket science, and yes progress is slowed somewhat, but having said that, I loved the acceleration more than flat out speed.

Both car drivers and bikers have the exact same mentality most of the time, were all human after all, its just that bikers usually have the tools to do the job better than cars. I know i got a lot more frustrated with other road users when i was on my bike compared to when i was driving my car.

Being on a bike lets you see more and gets you seen less.

 

[helpimcrap]

100mph isn't quick on the public highway? Thats insane...

it's not. most cars do that on a motorway every day with much less skilled or unaware drivers.

speed doesn't kill in spite of what you see. Irresponsible speed can kill.
you can kill at 30mph if you're drunk for example but the person doing 150mph is much more aware and so ok.

 

[Wilderbeast]

it's not. most cars do that on a motorway every day with much less skilled or unaware drivers.

speed doesn't kill in spite of what you see. Irresponsible speed can kill.
you can kill at 30mph if you're drunk for example but the person doing 150mph is much more aware and so ok.

Is the road and conditions appropriate for 100mph in the video?

Again 100mph is insane

 

[bloodiedathame]

There are a lot of morons in here. My 2p: Shouldn't have gone to overtake there, training teaches you to plan for the unexpected. As the road was widening there was increased chance of a car doing that. I was surprised to see him undertake his friend, let alone try and naff off into the distance. End of.

 

[4T5]

Good riddance, 1 moron off the roads at least. I have no sympathy for muppets who treat highways like racetracks.

Just quoted you so that more people can see what sort of person you are.

Do the majority of sports bike riders regularly do sustained stints of of 150-170mph on dual carriageways?

Myself & the people I know (Used to) go there but just for short blaps not sustained periods. You buzz up to flat out but drop it back a bit. My bike only did 137mph flat out so I nailed that everywhere.

Is the road and conditions appropriate for 100mph in the video?

Again 100mph is insane

Looks perfectly safe to me, A good example was he was in the fast lane with clear road ahead but still eased off when he saw the car joining the dual carriageway.

In my opinion both the car & bike were at fault & drove poorly.


At the end of the vid it looks to me like he came off the bike & got hit by the camper whilst his bike went on to hit the railings, Not often it would have been safer to stay with the bike is it.

 

[helpimcrap]

Is the road and conditions appropriate for 100mph in the video?

Again 100mph is insane

i haven't seen the video nor wish to glamourise a screw up. if it was unjust it was irresponsible and he died as a result. unfortunately it happens. if he'd been more responsible it would never have happened.

my point was speed doesn't kill - irresponsible speed does. point proven.

 

[Freefaller]

so he had his headlamp on, no help if the biker is hidden behind a car. 100 is a stupid speed on such a road if it was a motorway then that would be different. Closing speed of at least 60 feet per second I would say.

The speed had everything to do with it. if he was doing 70
A)The driver would more than likely of seen him
B) the biker could have reacted.

And I would say the biker hit him. Not the car clipped him. he went into the back. Not the rear quarter.

Luckily the police don't expect drivers to have x-ray vision and look in their rear view mirrors for seconds at a time.

You're just not going to accept that it's 50/50 are you?

 

[Glaucus]

You're just not going to accept that it's 50/50 are you?

Not unless you have a different video angle and can prove that the driver did not look in his mirrors. or that the biker could have easily been seen and anticipated.

I don't see how it is fair or right to blame the driver. Luckily the law agrees with me.

 

[Dogbreath]

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.

Look again. He is certainly sat behind car 2, but toward the outside of the lane with a perfectly clear line of sight between the bike and car 1. No blinds spots there I'm afraid, just a lack of observation.

100mph isn't quick on the public highway? Thats insane....

Not at all, 100mph and more can be very safe depending on the conditions. How do you think Traffic police manage without killing themselves every time they (legally) exceed 100mph?

 

[Glaucus]

Look again. He is certainly sat behind car 2, but toward the outside of the lane with a perfectly clear line of sight between the bike and car 1. No blinds spots there I'm afraid, just a lack of observation.

He is sat in he rear right of that car, the other car is towards the left. creating a perfect blind spot.

 

[mejinks]

You're just not going to accept that it's 50/50 are you?

I'm having a hard time with 50/50 sorry Will. That car driver had 1, maybe 2 seconds to react to a bike going well above the speed limit.

 

[Burned_Alive]

I'll just highlight this again

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.

 

[mejinks]

...
Not at all, 100mph and more can be very safe depending on the conditions. How do you think Traffic police manage without killing themselves every time they (legally) exceed 100mph?

You what? Traffic police are highly trained and constantly assessed. They are not above the law and can (and do) get prosecuted for speeding and dangerous driving.

If you were on a motorway on your own and doing 100mph, then fair enough, but all it takes is for some moron to skip straight to the outside lane going far slower and you are toast.

 

[cheets64]

Seems he was in a hurry.

I still never understand how people can feel safe driving at those speeds, I don't go above 80mph in a car on the motorway, you are using a road that has speed limits and good and bad drivers is the buzz really worth it?