Motorcyclists Last Seconds Captured On GoPro

cheesyboy said:
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?
Click to expand...

You talk about competent drivers, in this instance they were both incompetent. This is why speeding at these levels results in bans/points. Death due to dangerous driving also results in this.
 
Glaucus said:
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.
Click to expand...

If the outcome of causing an accident with a biker carries a much higher chance of killing the biker than causing an accident with a car does of killing the driver (and that is the case), then failing to look to see a bike is significantly more likely to result in you causing death.

The information was right there in front of the driver: a bike on the opposite carriageway.
 
The car driver admitted partial liability. If they've not seen the bike and a car, they might have missed a Police motorcyclist with sirens and lights on. Let's say the officer was riding at 97mph and got hit, is he in the wrong?
 
Gammawolf said:
You talk about competent drivers, in this instance they were both incompetent. This is why speeding at these levels results in bans/points. Death due to dangerous driving also results in this.
Click to expand...

It's a bit like the Tony Martin burglar murder case. The burglar wouldn't have died if he hadn't broken the law and burglarized the house. But that didn't give Martin the right to shoot him in the back as he tried to escape. It was still murder.

In this case, the breaking of the speed limit doesn't, in any way, exonerate the car driver from failing to give way. The court decided that the speed wasn't a factor in the driver's error - and he admitted as much by saying he didn't see ANY oncoming traffic.
 
cheesyboy said:
If the outcome of causing an accident with a biker carries a much higher chance of killing the biker than causing an accident with a car does of killing the driver (and that is the case), then failing to look to see a bike is significantly more likely to result in you causing death.

The information was right there in front of the driver: a bike on the opposite carriageway.
Click to expand...

What utter nonsense. they are both the same act. You can't and don't go, I'll only fail to look for cars. But make sure I'll spot all bikes.
How can you even type such obvious rubbish.

The mistake and hence crime should be identical. It currently isn't and your failed logic like the laws failed logic makes Zero sense.

In no way am I saying the car driver wasn't at fault, she clearly was.
 
bloodiedathame said:
The car driver admitted partial liability. If they've not seen the bike and a car, they might have missed a Police motorcyclist with sirens and lights on. Let's say the officer was riding at 97mph and got hit, is he in the wrong?
Click to expand...

That's a bit of a moot point though, the reason sirens and lights are used on these vehicles are precisely because they are potentially travelling faster than people expect. It works very well since sound travels at 761Mph so is likely to reach all road users before the vehicle does.
 
mattyg said:
Just watched it again. Probably a natural reaction but it also looks like the rider attempted to avoid the clio by aiming for the left. The space the clio was heading into.
Click to expand...

Which is why I suggested earlier that perhaps all vehicle users should get official training on this type of situation.;)

If the Clio driver saw the bike and knew the motor cyclist was going to try and overtake (behind the car), while the motor cyclist knew the driver was going to try and complete the turn into the junction, each party has an idea of how things are expected to play out.

But as things stand, the motor cyclist has to second-guess what the driver (and vice versa) is going to do and in a split second guess which way to go in order to try and reduce/avoid contact.
 
wesley said:
if he was doing at 60mph. the car driver would have time to react.

speed kills
Click to expand...

Plus, the motorcyclist would have had more time to react/brake/avoid the car.

Its also entirely possible that, rightly or wrongly, the driver of the car looked at the oncoming traffic, saw the bike in the distance and deemed it safe, not noticing the speed the bike was going at. They would then start their turn, look again and unexpectedly see a speeding bike moments from impact. So in that respect I can understand how it may seem harsh on the driver of the car.
 
Gammawolf said:
That's a bit of a moot point though, the reason sirens and lights are used on these vehicles are precisely because they are potentially travelling faster than people expect. It works very well since sound travels at 761Mph so is likely to reach all road users before the vehicle does.
Click to expand...

Driver could have had the stereo up.

The point I'm trying to make is that the driver admitted to not looking properly. Everyones reactions would be different if the rider in question was a Police officer with lights and sirens on, lets presume the driver didn't see him. The speed doesn't excuse the drivers judgement. Not that I agree with the speed in this situation either.
 
bloodiedathame said:
The car driver admitted partial liability. If they've not seen the bike and a car, they might have missed a Police motorcyclist with sirens and lights on. Let's say the officer was riding at 97mph and got hit, is he in the wrong?
Click to expand...

If any emergency services vehicle is involved in a RTA when responding to a call, I thought the driver of said vehicle has to justify whatever speed they were going, with potential job losing consequences (on top of anything else that transpires).
 
physichull said:
Plus, the motorcyclist would have had more time to react/brake/avoid the car.

Its also entirely possible that, rightly or wrongly, the driver of the car looked at the oncoming traffic, saw the bike in the distance and deemed it safe, not noticing the speed the bike was going at. They would then start their turn, look again and unexpectedly see a speeding bike moments from impact. So in that respect I can understand how it may seem harsh on the driver of the car.
Click to expand...
Driver said he didn't see the bike, or the car he'd overtaken, at all. Didn't even know they were there.

Still harsh?
 
cheesyboy said:
In this case, the breaking of the speed limit doesn't, in any way, exonerate the car driver from failing to give way. The court decided that the speed wasn't a factor in the driver's error - and he admitted as much by saying he didn't see ANY oncoming traffic.
Click to expand...

Not really sure what you are trying to prove, of course this is the case. The only thing that is certain was that speed was a factor in the riders survivability statistics. Both parties incompetence lead to one of them dying simple as that.
 
ThaReaperGuy said:
Why wasn't it?
Click to expand...

Because the crash was caused by the car driver - the car driver didn't even look to see what oncoming traffic there was before pulling across the carriageway. The biker's speed was irrelevant save for the fact it put him at the wrong place at the wrong time. The court agreed with this, which is why the driver got punished.
 
Another point, we have debated that if the bike was going at 60MPH then it would have still hit the Clio, if that was the case, why did the car the bike overtook not also hit the car that pulled out?
 
cheesyboy said:
Because the crash was caused by the car driver - the car driver didn't even look to see what oncoming traffic there was before pulling across the carriageway. The biker's speed was irrelevant save for the fact it put him at the wrong place at the wrong time. The court agreed with this, which is why the driver got punished.
Click to expand...

No, the driver did look and never saw anything coming and performed the manoeuvre, however a 60MPH car and a 100MPH bike were coming. The bike hit the clio, the car never.
 
ThaReaperGuy said:
Another point, we have debated that if the bike was going at 60MPH then it would have still hit the Clio, if that was the case, why did the car the bike overtook not also hit the car that pulled out?
Click to expand...

Assuming the same starting point, if the bike had been going at 60 at the point when the car crossed the give way line, then the Clio would still have been partially in the carriageway by the time the bike reached it. The car was overtaken before this, so was a second or two further back. But also not seen by the clio driver.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom