Motorcyclists Last Seconds Captured On GoPro

cheesyboy · 5 Sep 2014 at 15:59

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.

I've covered this;

cheesyboy said:
100m takes 2.3 seconds to cover at 97mph, 3.8 seconds at 60mph

The car cuts across the give way line less than 2.5 seconds before impact (so bike would be approx 100m away), and would have taken more than 1.5 seconds further to clear the carriageway.

Therefore, even at 60mph for the bike, the car would still be in the carriageway. Bike would have been able to avoid the tail of the car, but the car should never have started the manoeuvre - it was simply dangerous

Clio driver was male, btw

Shadez · 5 Sep 2014 at 16:00

Musty Pie said:
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?

I do wonder if he really didnt see them but just automatically ignored them because they were to far away?

ie, didnt recognize the speed of the bike and because of its distance failed to recognize the threat.

As for the car it would have still been 150-200m further up the road and could be easily ignored.

Glaucus · 5 Sep 2014 at 16:03

Shadez said:
I do wonder if he really didnt see them but just automatically ignored them because they were to far away?

ie, didnt recognize the speed of the bike and because of its distance failed to recognize the threat.

As for the car it would have still been 150-200m further up the road and could be easily ignored.

What rubbish, she pulls into the turning lane at about 4 seconds into vid, by 6 seconds he's all ready crashed. 40mph is 18m/s so he would have been just 36m back up the road, not several hundred.
Neither could be ignored, even with no bike there, she should not have turned.

Or in another word he would have arrived 1.33 seconds later. Assuming she's doing 5mph, she would have been 2.1 metres further forward. Clio is 3.7m long so he would have stoved into just behind the door.

Feek · 5 Sep 2014 at 16:05

An interesting question is whether this incident has made anyone on here question the way they ride/drive? I'm quite sure that some times in the past I've probably overtaken when perhaps the conditions weren't quite perfect. It's made me think about it which was the whole point of making the video public in the first place.

bloodiedathame · 5 Sep 2014 at 16:09

It's made me realise how crap road riding is (not been on a motorcycle for little over 2 years now, since crashing on a diesel patch).

Dis86 · 5 Sep 2014 at 16:09

Can't really see how the car driver didn't share any blame in that like...

They also blatantly cut the corner!

Glaucus · 5 Sep 2014 at 16:10

Feek said:
An interesting question is whether this incident has made anyone on here question the way they ride/drive? I'm quite sure that some times in the past I've probably overtaken when perhaps the conditions weren't quite perfect. It's made me think about it which was the whole point of making the video public in the first place.

I expect it's made a lot of people think about it. Unfortunately human nature after a while returns to complacency for the vast majority. It takes a massive scare to change most peoples behaviour long term. Or incentive and long training where it becomes second nature. With a short test and low risk of getting caught, the latter doesn't exist.

One of the best things for me was getting a speed restricted van. It's now become second nature, do far more work driving than home driving. Even at home I don't do the speeds I used to.

Steedie · 5 Sep 2014 at 16:13

BigDannyO said:
This New Zealand road safety vid seems appropriate.

Unfortunately people make mistakes on the road. It's how you mitigate to account for those mistakes that makes you a safe or unsafe road user.

That's one of the most effective adverts I've seen for that type of thing

Nevakonaza · 5 Sep 2014 at 16:15

Seriously its sad that he died,But it was his own fault for speeding..the car driver shouldn't have been prosecuted...

Glaucus · 5 Sep 2014 at 16:17

Nevakonaza said:
Hang on,The driver of the car was prosecuted,banned from driving for 18 months?..how is that fair when the bike driver was speeding and breaking the law..its hard enough seeing a motorbike as it is sometimes especially if they are not wearing high vis jackets.

Seriously its sad that he died,But it was his own fault for speeding..the car driver shouldn't have been prosecuted...

One person breaking the law does not mean you can do what ever you want and break the law as well.

They both made a mistake, she did not see the biker or the car behind him. She clearly broke the law as well. So it wasn't as easy as just missing seeing a speeding biker.

wez130 · 5 Sep 2014 at 16:18

Glaucus said:
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.

I was trying to work out where the car (that the bike overtook at 1s) would have been at the point the motorbike hit the clio. (And ultimately, whether it would have been safe for the clio to manoevre disregarding the bike.

The time started at the point the bike overtook the car, and if we know that the car was doing the limit, and the bike was doing at least 97mph, then it'd be possible to work it out. I just cba working out exact. but as pointed out, someone else has already done the maths.

Glaucus · 5 Sep 2014 at 16:20

wez130 said:
I was trying to work out where the car (that the bike overtook at 1s) would have been at the point the motorbike hit the clio. (And ultimately, whether it would have been safe for the clio to manoevre disregarding the bike.

The time started at the point the bike overtook the car, and if we know that the car was doing the limit, and the bike was doing at least 97mph, then it'd be possible to work it out. I just cba working out exact. but as pointed out, someone else has already done the maths.

Rough calculation, when he was overtaking makes little difference. It's the point she is preparing to turn and the point he can be seen.

Glaucus said:
What rubbish, she pulls into the turning lane at about 4 seconds into vid, by 6 seconds he's all ready crashed. 40mph is 18m/s so he would have been just 36m back up the road, not several hundred.
Neither could be ignored, even with no bike there, she should not have turned.

Or in another word he would have arrived 1.33 seconds later. Assuming she's doing 5mph, she would have been 2.1 metres further forward. Clio is 3.7m long so he would have stoved into just behind the door.

ci_newman · 5 Sep 2014 at 16:20

Feek said:
An interesting question is whether this incident has made anyone on here question the way they ride/drive? I'm quite sure that some times in the past I've probably overtaken when perhaps the conditions weren't quite perfect. It's made me think about it which was the whole point of making the video public in the first place.

I am already overly cautious when it comes to overtaking, there are definitely some road users that need to adjust their behaviour when it comes to this though.

A couple of examples from my travels on the last couple of days:

a) An impatient car driver who didn't like sitting behind a tractor on a small twisty A-road, so overtook on a blind bend and barely missed the oncoming traffic

b) Traveling on the motorway with heavy but good flowing traffic (i.e. meeting or exceed the 70mph speed limits on the middle and outside lane) and a motorcyclist considers it good judgement to be filtering in those conditions (not over and under taking, actually squeezing between two cars in the middle and outside lane at the same time), despite the traffic exceeding the national speed limit

DaleTheWhale · 5 Sep 2014 at 16:22

After reading everything, I don't understand what point everyone is trying to make to try and point the blame to one party of the other.

The cause of death was because the driver had pulled out, causing the bike to hit it.

2 factors played a part in that happening.

#1 - The driver did not spot the biker/car coming from a distance.
#2 - The biker was travelling at 100 MPH down a 60 MPH road.

If the driver had spotted the biker doing 100MPH, the manoeuvre wouldn't have been performed.
If the bike was doing 60 MPH, the manoeuvre would have been completed and the biker continued onwards.

We can go into buts and if's and whatever else, but the blame is 50/50, remove either factor and incident wouldn't have happened, both factors caused the incident and because of that a guy lost his life.

Neither party is to blame, but they were the factors.

Glaucus · 5 Sep 2014 at 16:22

ci_newman said:
b) Traveling on the motorway with heavy but good flowing traffic (i.e. meeting or exceed the 70mph speed limits on the middle and outside lane) and a motorcyclist considers it good judgement to be filtering in those conditions (not over and under taking, actually squeezing between two cars in the middle and outside lane at the same time), despite the traffic exceeding the national speed limit

Sod that, I don't feel safe filtering when traffics crawling, unless there's plenty of space. Squeezing between cars, they need to be stationery and you still need to go slow and pay huge attention.

CircleFaust · 5 Sep 2014 at 16:22

real shame this
hope it makes everyone on the road think a little more, like the mother wants it to

Glaucus · 5 Sep 2014 at 16:23

ThaReaperGuy said:
#If the driver had spotted the biker doing 100MPH, the manoeuvre wouldn't have been performed.
If the bike was doing 60 MPH, the manoeuvre would have been completed and the biker continued onwards.
.

It would have been performed, she didn't see the car and there wasn't a decent amount of time to turn if the bike wasn't there Fullstop.

If the bike was doing 60 it is very likely he would have still crashed into her.

indyskyz · 5 Sep 2014 at 16:24

I must have watched this video at least 10 times @025% speed and it looks as though the bike would be in full view of the car (With the car pointed pretty much directly at the bike) before the turn was executed. If he was looking, the biker would have been no more than 40/50ft from the car before he crossed the white line

cheesyboy · 5 Sep 2014 at 16:25

ThaReaperGuy said:
After reading everything, I don't understand what point everyone is trying to make to try and point the blame to one party of the other.

The cause of death was because the driver had pulled out, causing the bike to hit it.

2 factors played a part in that happening.

#1 - The driver did not spot the biker/car coming from a distance.
#2 - The biker was travelling at 100 MPH down a 60 MPH road.

If the driver had spotted the biker doing 100MPH, the manoeuvre wouldn't have been performed.
If the bike was doing 60 MPH, the manoeuvre would have been completed and the biker continued onwards.

We can go into buts and if's and whatever else, but the blame is 50/50, remove either factor and incident wouldn't have happened, both factors caused the incident and because of that a guy lost his life.

Neither party is to blame, but they were the factors.

Except, breaking it down into very simple terms, the biker was driving down the road and the car didn't look and just drove into his path.

The biker's speed didn't make the car driver not look; the speed was incidental to the whole thing.

Glaucus · 5 Sep 2014 at 16:27

cheesyboy said:
The biker's speed didn't make the car driver not look; the speed was incidental to the whole thing.

Well I would say it had a huge influence on the outcome. 40% extra speed is a huge amount of energy to dissipate and would have massively shortened his odds of surviving. Which is the car drivers fault, so charging them with the cause of death is pretty harsh.