Associate
- Joined
- 3 Sep 2014
- Posts
- 83
I think it has considering the lengthy discussion so far
Motorcyclists Last Seconds Captured On GoPro
- Thread starter RavenXXX2
- Start date
By this logic its now ok to drive at 200mph, because if anything happens its the other persons fault. Hey look, I have right of way therefore I can go what ever speed I want.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
Bikers mistake was over taking at the wrong time and then not anticipating the turner. The car drivers looks he was already in the turning motion by the time he saw the bike. Tragic accident, shocking that there is audio as well, his last word was something like "woooowh"
Also what stood out to me was that by the time he realize what was happening and wanted to try and avoid the car, he had less than a second before impact, even though it was a fair distance away.
Also what stood out to me was that by the time he realize what was happening and wanted to try and avoid the car, he had less than a second before impact, even though it was a fair distance away.
Sorry, my point was that the driver did not have right of way and should not commit to any maneuver that would cause the traffic that has right of way to take avoidance measures. Choosing to slow to allow another vehicle to complete a maneuver is a totally different situation to this one. In this case the drivers poor observation and lack of ability to judge speed of another vehicle (if they did actually notice it) resulted in a collision. The speed the biker was doing is a factor and the rider paid the ultimate penalty for that fact and being involved in a collision.
From looking at the video and the point where the driver decided to make the turn I really don't think if the driver had been doing the NSL that he would have missed the car, he just would have hit the back end and at a slower speed. I could have course be totally wrong as that is only how I interpret the video.
It'd be interesting to see what the police figured out facts and numbers wise with regards to speeds, distances etc if the bike had been going the NSL when the car committed to turning.
Musty, my thoughts on the driver are that they probably did see the vehicles, were in a rush, misjudged the speed of the bike, committed to the maneuver then CRASH. Maybe shock is playing a part in the drivers statement or maybe they thought that saying they didn't see the vehicles was the best option they had? I really don't know though.
Quite, it absolutely astounded me that he deemed it appropriate!
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2012
- Posts
- 6,593
- Location
- Tamworth, UK
That's why I said it was a factor to the accident, not a cause.
That he was speeding is about as relevant in this context as that he was riding a bike. He probably wouldn't have died if piloting a car, and that's not the car driver's fault either.
You said it was 50:50. It wasn't.
Which is the whole point. The same mistake can have massively different punishments, which is stupid.
Actually, now that I've thought back this was a defence the woman that crashed in to me used. I was travelling along a straight road and she pulled out into the side of me.
She first said she didn't see me because I didn't have my lights on - my insurers pointed out that when the accident happened it was 6pm on a late July evening so it was bright daylight. She then changed it to I was speeding (I wasn't, I was actually going under the limit as my car was ****ed). At this point her own insurance company decided she didn't have a case and awarded me the full sum.
She first said she didn't see me because I didn't have my lights on - my insurers pointed out that when the accident happened it was 6pm on a late July evening so it was bright daylight. She then changed it to I was speeding (I wasn't, I was actually going under the limit as my car was ****ed). At this point her own insurance company decided she didn't have a case and awarded me the full sum.
If a "competent" driver would be expected to see you, in a given incident, but the driver in question doesn't, then it's not your fault is it?
The bike rider had right of way, his speeding doesn't cancel that unless it is such that the car driver could reasonably be expected to have not seen him despite "competent" efforts. The car driver should have seen him and a competent driver wouldn't have made the manoeuvre even if they thought he was travelling at the speed limit - there just wasn't time to start and complete the manoeuvre even with the bike going at 60.
That's why the court found the driver guilty of death by careless driving.
My point about the chevrons is not that he shouldn't cross them (in fact the highway code says something vague like don't enter unless necessary, whatever that means).
The point was that the chevrons are there because they are setting up the protected area at the junction that the clio was turning from. If anything they should serve as a fair indicator to anyone with an ounce of road craft that doing 1.5x the speed limit there is perhaps Not A Very Good Idea.
It was just one lapse of judgement out of many made by both parties, and should be recognised as such by anyone hoping to learn from this horrific incident.
It's not the same mistake.
Failing to look to see a car carries different consequences to failing to look to see a bike. Any driver can make that calculation. The bike is there to be seen, drivers need to take more care to look out for them because they are a more vulnerable road user.
Probably already covered but I cba searching
the difference between a bike travelling at 60 Mph and 97Mph is 62%. Of which assuming the bike is 250Kg and the rider is 80Kg, the energy at 60Mph is 119KJ, and at 97Mph is 309KJ. So in order to get down to 60Mph, which is still not a speed i'd want to experience a crash you'd need to dump about 150% the energy than if you were traveling at 60Mph to begin with.Just what, how can you even type that.
So it's ok to dangerous drive against cars as it's less likely to kill. What nonsense. Car or bike is identical and should have same punishment.
The mistake was turning when there wasn't time, not that they died. It is a clearly wrong the law is set up like this. that random chance has a impact of a fine ranging upto years in prison.
If he was doing the speedlimit, there is a much greater chance of surving and she couldn't have been charged with what she was. Even though her driving would have been no different.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 6,586
Never?
What's probably happened is the driver took the decision to jump infront of the bike because he misjudged the speed, you don't know what the traffic was like behind him. He/she made the split second decision and it backfired, killed someone irrespective of the laws that someone was breaking tried to get out of it by pleading ignorance.
I mean, *everyone* must have jumped a gap that's tight just because they cannot be arsed to wait?
What if the Clio was speeding leading up to thwt junction and if he'd been going 60mph the bike would have been in a different physical location at that very moment in time as well.
Theorising is stupid. What happened, happened; both were at fault here but one paid the ultimate price.
as you say everything in hindsight totally different but not the case