Motorcyclists Last Seconds Captured On GoPro

Double edged sword, the biker was riding too fast and the car driver shouldn't have pulled out, I am inclined to say that the biker was at greater fault than the car driver.

coming from a family where motorbikes have always been around I've got the following to say...

at least 50% of car drivers I see on the road seem to drive like nobs, however at least 95% of the bikers I see ride like complete and utter bell ends.

And I live in an area where we see a lot of bikers and unfortunately a lot of biker accidents (North York's moors area, Whitby, Helmsley etc.)

Every single time I see a biker flying around I cringe at what could potentially happen.

The dad in law is big into his bikes and currently rides a Hyabusa, I've seen how he rides and he's a nearly 60 year old bloke!!! it scares the bejesus out of me. Why bikers feel that the highway code and the law doesn't apply to them, and where they get their air of invincibility from is beyond me.
 
markweatherill said:
That sounds rather worrying if the circumstances really were similar. Surely it wasn't 'the biker was going 100+ and therefore no blame attaches to the accused'.
And surely not 'The CPS have to charge the car driver even though the fault was obviously all the biker's because of his speed'

The legal penalty for speeding on a motorcycle is not Death, and if he wasn't dead I'm sure he'd be charged with speeding.
Click to expand...

The problem is the charges that were brought rather than the verdict!

"Careless Driving" I would probably go for. (Though not the full "Causing Death By", the Motorcyclists own contribution was too great for me to be happy with the Clio driver carrying the full responsibility!)

It was the Motorcyclist who was undoubtedly driving "Dangerously"

I would therefore not find the Clio driver guilty of "Causing death by dangerous driving" since he was not actually driving "dangerously" and if that was the only charge that I could give verdict on then the clio driver would get the benefit of the doubt from me!
 
Last edited:
Shadez said:
This is my take on it as well, if the bike had been traveling at the speed limit the accident would not of happened. The car driver would have had time to complete the move, if necessary the bike rider would have had plenty of time to reduce his speed slightly giving even more time to complete the move.
Click to expand...

Why do you state that it would have given the rider time to reduce his speed? If that is the case then the driver is at fault too due to carrying out a maneuver without the appropriate observation that there is a vehicle heading towards him at a speed where they could not complete said maneuver without there being a collision unless the person who had the right of way took corrective actions.

I don't understand why the comment has been made ref a clio being 60ft long. You'd have to compare how long it'd have taken the clio to complete it's maneuver to how long it'd have take the bike to get to it from 60ft away at the NSL.

There is more than one reason why this accident happened.
 
Biker was playing russian roulette, 100mph past junctions...
Although some blame lies with the driver for not being observant, i'm surprised they were convicted of death by DD.
 
Tom_ed1987 said:
Biker was playing russian roulette, 100mph past junctions...
Although some blame lies with the driver for not being observant, i'm surprised they were convicted of death by DD.
Click to expand...

They admitted they didn't even see the car just behind him, that's some pretty poor driving. It is a shame for them as we all make mistakes, their mistake just ended with death. Although I do strongly disagree with such laws.
Should be dealt with on the mistake, not the outcome.

As for the 60ft long Clio comment, mind boggling. You need to do some maths and it has sod all to do with Clio needimg to be 60 foot long to cause the accident.
 
Swarfega said:
Doesn't everyone treat every other car on the road as an idiot? I mean even crossing the road at a pedestrian crossing I make sure cars stop before I walk in front of them. If you treat every car on the road like they are going to drive in front of you then your going to be a lot safer.
Click to expand...

Definitely this. I think Freefaller said it back a page, drive defensively
 
Glaucus said:
They admitted they didn't even see the car just behind him, that's some pretty poor driving. It is a shame for them as we all make mistakes, their mistake just ended with death. Although I do strongly disagree with such laws.
Should be dealt with on the mistake, not the outcome.
Click to expand...

Do you mean we should all get similar sentences as the driver in question when we make similar mistakes, but which don't kill people?

Or should we have minimal sentences for all?
 
Gixer said:
Why do you state that it would have given the rider time to reduce his speed? If that is the case then the driver is at fault too due to carrying out a maneuver without the appropriate observation that there is a vehicle heading towards him at a speed where they could not complete said maneuver without there being a collision unless the person who had the right of way took corrective actions.

I don't understand why the comment has been made ref a clio being 60ft long. You'd have to compare how long it'd have taken the clio to complete it's maneuver to how long it'd have take the bike to get to it from 60ft away at the NSL.

There is more than one reason why this accident happened.
Click to expand...

Are you saying you have never slowed to allow another vehicle to complete a maneuver? Just lifting of at the first sign of the car moving would have added an extra second or two to the time the car had to finish.

Im not saying there isnt any blaim on the car driver for the accident just that if the bike was doing the NSL the accident would not of happened.
 
cheesyboy said:
Do you mean we should all get similar sentences as the driver in question when we make similar mistakes, but which don't kill people?

Or should we have minimal sentences for all?
Click to expand...

It doesn't really matter which way you do it, that's upto society
.
Random chance shouldn't be part of the law, it shouldn't matter how people fall, or one person is built stronger than the other etc. Or now safe the front of your car is compared to another vehicle etc.

So in this case I would advocate that the mistake is quite minor and everyone has done it, as such maximum sentence should be fairly minor.

The fact we feel the need to punish more if some one dies, is not based on any logic, it's just part of the revenge mechanism which also shouldn't be part of the law.
 
Surely if the motorbike driver was doing the speed limit not nearly 100mph then this would have made the motorbike at least 30-40 seconds slower getting to that junction in which case the car that pulled out would have not been there yet. So its still the fact that he was speeding that killed him in that sense sadly :(
 
Glaucus said:
The fact we feel the need to punish more if some one dies, is not based on any logic, it's just part of the revenge mechanism which also shouldn't be part of the law.
Click to expand...

Yeah this makes a lot of sense really, and this is a great case to argue this fact.

I don't feel like the sentence given to the driver is at all fair given the circumstances.
 
If you decide to break the speed limit to that extent, then all the burden should lie on the person breaking the law. I think it's as simple as that and works on the autobahn fine.
 
On first viewing, I was inclined to pretty much give the driver the benefit of the doubt but their error does seem pretty clear, tbh. Based on the video, at the point that they actually started to move, the bike should have been clearly visible. Had they actually seen him, they might have simply misjudged his speed. But the fact that they did not suggests that they were not paying enough attention. That said, because of the speed that the rider was doing, the whole thing was over so shockingly quickly. My personal opinion would put the blame around 70/30 or so, against the motorcyclist. His speed robbed both parties of any useful reaction time, that could have averted or lessened the damage from accident.
 
I wonder how many peoples opinions of this accident would change if it was a car that was going close to 100mph and a push cyclist/motorbike had made the "junction manoeuvre". I am sure the pro-biker lot would be fast to call the driver a liability etc.

Personally I think the vehicle itself is kind of irrelevant. The main contributing factor here is the speed of the vehicle.

Any safe motorist (of ANY type of vehicle) should know to treat EVERY other road user with caution. You should always leave yourself time to make safe manoeuvres to avoid accidents and in this case the biker did not.

The other factors can be argued until the cows come home but quite simply the man was doing a stupid speed which has resulted in his death. Which is a terrible shame.
 
Fault on both parties. Simple as. It's not a one sided thing. Poor and unsafe driving/riding by all. RIP.
 
cheesyboy said:
Do you mean we should all get similar sentences as the driver in question when we make similar mistakes, but which don't kill people?

Or should we have minimal sentences for all?
Click to expand...
It's not as silly as it sounds.

It's the whole virtue ethics vs consequentialism debate.

I pose a moral question,

Person A drink drives & makes it home.
Person B drink drives, get's stopped & suffers a short driving ban.
Person C drink drives & crashes into a family car killing the whole family - receiving a huge prison sentence.

In all three cases the choice to drink & drive was the factor which created the list, the only difference is the amount of luck each driver had at avoiding those potential consequences.

I'd argue all three are guilty of endangering human life & should all be punished the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom