Motorcyclists Last Seconds Captured On GoPro

Exactly
Or in this case

Driver pulls out in front of speeding biker, biker dies and driver gets prison sentence.

Driver pulls out in front of speeding biker, biker is wearing full leathers and amour, by chance doesn't hit anything and slides down road with only minor injuries. Sentence is negliable.

Yet they've made the same mistake.
 
Lord-Jaffa said:
95% the bikers fault, his speed was the ultimate cause of this accident and the loss of life. Sadly I see bikers do this every single day on the roads.
Click to expand...

No it wasn't. Unless you fail to read what happened.
What caused the accident was the car turning. They ADMITED they didn't see the biker or the car.
If the driver had said they misjudged the speed then that's a different matter. But she didn't even see the car, let alone biker.
 
elmarko said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'd pose another scenario:

Person A turns into a side road and doesn't look right at the last minute. They complete the turn successfully.

Person B turns into a side road and doesn't look right at the last minute. They hit a cyclist as they turn crushing his leg.

Should both be punished in the same way?
 
Burnsy2023 said:
I'd pose another scenario:

Person A turns into a side road and doesn't look right at the last minute. They complete the turn successfully.

Person B turns into a side road and doesn't look right at the last minute. They hit a cyclist as they turn crushing his leg.

Should both be punished in the same way?
Click to expand...

Yes
 
elmarko said:
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.
Click to expand...

An interesting principle.

At first thought, I would imagine a pure virtue ethics position would require a sort of averaged out punishment. i.e. an act which is likely to cause death 10% of the time is punished with a sentence 10% of that of a 100% death act.

I would think that, in the case of driving errors, this would mean a pretty tame uniform sentence. Much like with speeding points/fines - except no harsher punishment where speeding is shown to have caused death.

I'm not sure that's especially workable, nor very satisfactory for many. It fails to illustrate the potential seriousness of the consequences of such behaviours, as a heavy sentence where death results would.

That said, a mixture of the two is probably best. As with drink driving, in fact - punishing the act and further punishing for any resulting consequences.
 
It's very workable, law shouldn't need to satisfactory to the many, it should be what works.

Rehabilitation is not satisfactory to many, which is why we have utter **** rehabilitation program, which leads to more crime. So should we really do what's satisfactory to many? Even though we know scientifically it causes more suffering.

And yes the "punishment" should reflect how many people do it. We're humans and we make mistakes. Every single driver has made the same mistake, just not with the same outcome. It's not quite that simple, as there's other circumstances that need to be taken into account.

Drink driving is not done by many and is easily avoidable and as such should carry a much higher "punishment"

It's just like attempted murder and murder, because someone was lucky enough to service, or medical people got their faster, there's a different law and guidelines? What that is insane. It should be covered by one law and one guide line. What's even worse is they take psychological harm into account. Because people react differently pshycological harm can be massively different to exactly the same even.

Some of these things made sense 100s of years ago, they make little sense today with what we know about the brain and behaviour. It's time for a massive overhaul. All though not at one time a steady change.
 
Last edited:
Glaucus said:
No it wasn't. Unless you fail to read what happened.
What caused the accident was the car turning. They ADMITED they didn't see the biker or the car.
If the driver had said they misjudged the speed then that's a different matter. But she didn't even see the car, let alone biker.
Click to expand...


I cant imagine the amount of emotional trauma being the cause of this mans death could cause a person? The first words to be spoken after most incidents like this are similar to "I didn't see them" etc. - Hence the SMIDY campaign.

Although I do wonder how much of this is true in most cases.

Lets say the driver of a vehicle delivers this line in a state of shock (not that far fetched to believe) and actually believes/convinces themselves of this being the truth after the fact.

Cant exactly change story/statements once shock has gone or memories return otherwise you would be viewed as doing anything you can to avoid sentences etc. etc.

I feel sorry for all parties really. Yes the driver made mistakes and so did the biker. And I guess "blame" when loss of life through accidents like this (fault on both sides) is a little unfair.

Either way, both parties at fault to some extent and its just a tragic shame.

I cant base any of the above on fact, its all speculation/me considering the case from a personal view point. I just wonder if the driver (as a result of causing a mans death) either couldn't really remember the real thought process of his decision or genuinely didn't see the guy?

This seems a bit weird, and I am finding it hard to put what I am thinking into writing.

Just as a motorist I cant understand how he could have NOT seen 2 vehicles unless there is another factor that we are not aware of? And I am wondering if panic fear of consequence altered his explanations at all?

I think my brain might melt ...
 
Glaucus said:
It's easy missing two or more vehicles, by not paying attention.
Click to expand...

But then I have NEVER made a turn on a junction without paying attention? so I think this is why I cant come to terms with this?

Like someone said previously no one in a decent mental state knowingly pulls across a junction like that without paying ANY attention?

To miss a fast bike is 1 thing, but a car as well? Therefore it makes me think there is something more here than we all know?
 
Whilst this is all very sad, I have to say that its rare that I see a bike doing under 100mph. They really do seem to have their own set of rules on the road.
 
Glaucus said:
It's very workable, law shouldn't need to satisfactory to the many, it should be what works.

Rehabilitation is not satisfactory to many, which is why we have utter **** rehabilitation program, which leads to more crime. So should we really do what's satisfactory to many? Even though we know scientifically it causes more suffering.
Click to expand...

The practical problem is: how do you catch careless/dangerous drivers when no accident results from the action? Where is the deterrent to the act if you only get punished lightly when you actually cause a problem? The risk of injuring others doesn't seem to be much of a motivator for many (going on phone use I witness whilst driving).

I drive very carefully, but my motivation for doing so is more to do with self-preservation (very much including freedom from imprisonment) to minimise harm to me and my family than it is to do with minimising harm to others (though that is also a factor).

Perhaps a fairly stiff punishment all around would help that aspect, but it's a burden to enact that punishment uniformly and absolutely.

I probably need to ponder the idea a bit more, tbh. I suspect I'll come round to agreeing with it the more I consider it.
 
Glaucus said:
I don't believe you. You are human. So you have never missed something in the years you have been driving.
Click to expand...

I can say with 100% certainty say that I have never knowingly put myself in danger by crossing oncoming traffic in my without looking...

I am quite confident in saying that no one mentally sound would consciously do that.

No one.

which makes me think there is something else here? Either a lie, or mental trauma, or some other circumstance?

Ah I dunno. Again I cant quite explain what I mean very well ...
 
Well for a start there's huge amounts of cctv, or police could actually stop people. But as it's relatively hard to prosecute for poor driving and so easy to prosecute for speeding/phone that's what they do.

Having a stiff punishment that is caught so rarely, does not improve general driving standards, it doesn't reduce such incidents.

Convicting poor driving standards more often, is far more effective as people can not afford to lose driving license.
 
Janesy B said:
They both played their part, Clio driver admitted not seeing the car coming down the road (the one the motorcyclist overtook) or the rider but yeah, way too bloody fast for approaching a junction. There's a lesson in that video for everyone to learn, not just car drivers.
Click to expand...

Glaucus said:
Have most people missed that she admitting tonot seeing the bike or CAR, the car was doing the speed limit and she still didn't see it. This is why she is guilty.
Both Muppets, she didn't look and his speed makes everything harder.
Click to expand...

I may be wrong, and i'm still working this out as i type, but that was a 60 limit road, so lets assume the car that the biker overtakes (at 1 second in) is doing the limit (likely). The bike is travelling 40 mph faster than the car and reaches the junction 4 seconds later to meet the car, that mean that the car will have been about 7 or 8 seconds from the junction (200-300m?) when the clio started to manoevre, 7-8 seconds is plenty of time to execute the manouvre and she would have done so if we remove the bike from the scenario.

To be fair, i wouldn't imagine the car being on her mind at any point after she had hit the motorcyclist (or he hit her). I'd imagine she'd have plenty of fear / hurt etc going through her mind to think about whether she had seen the car, let alone the bike.

I am not saying she's totally guilt free, but that biker certainly contributed mostly to his demise, and the girl has to live with those consequences for the rest of her life, even though she is not totally at fault.
 
wez130 said:
I may be wrong, and i'm still working this out as i type, but that was a 60 limit road, so lets assume the car that the biker overtakes (at 1 second in) is doing the limit (likely). The bike is travelling 40 mph faster than the car and reaches the junction 4 seconds later to meet the car, that mean that the car will have been about 7 or 8 seconds from the junction (200-300m?) when the clio started to manoevre, 7-8 seconds is plenty of time to execute the manouvre and she would have done so if we remove the bike from the scenario.

To be fair, i wouldn't imagine the car being on her mind at any point after she had hit the motorcyclist (or he hit her). I'd imagine she'd have plenty of fear / hurt etc going through her mind to think about whether she had seen the car, let alone the bike.

I am not saying she's totally guilt free, but that biker certainly contributed mostly to his demise, and the girl has to live with those consequences for the rest of her life, even though she is not totally at fault.
Click to expand...



And an utterly pointless tact to take, where do you put the starting point for the time, when he leaves home? So would be minutes different? You might as well say if he didn't ride that day then he wouldn't have been near the junction.

The calculation you are looking for and the only sensible one in the discussion is?

Is assuming he was traveling at 60mph and at the same distances involved what would happen. Which even if it came out as a miss doesn't neglect her mistake.

On the other hand all though her mistake caused the crash, the law is stupid. As his excess speed massively increased the chance of him dying which is not her fault and is out of her hands. I don't know but I expect she was charged with this, due to badly written laws. She made a mistake and death was caused, so conviction. Rather than taking everything into account.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom