Motorcyclists Last Seconds Captured On GoPro

DaleTheWhale · 5 Sep 2014 at 17:14

Tonester0011 said:
If the car was where the bike was, he would have. The car was behind the bike

Exactly, if the car was also doing 100MPH then yes it would, it was behind the bike because the car was doing less speed.

MooMoo444 · 5 Sep 2014 at 17:16

Can't help but think the driver of that red car was secretly laughing to themself when the bike crashed infront after it zoomed past him/her at 100mph.

Tonester0011 · 5 Sep 2014 at 17:16

ThaReaperGuy said:
Exactly, if the car was also doing 100MPH then yes it would, it was behind the bike because the car was doing less speed.

DaleTheWhale · 5 Sep 2014 at 17:17

cheesyboy said:
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.

The starting point would have been different, the driver would have made the manoeuvre regardless of the situation of the bike and car, as the driver never saw them.

If the bike was doing 60MPH thus still behind the overtaken car, the Clio would have passed and the event a lucky near miss.

cheesyboy · 5 Sep 2014 at 17:18

ThaReaperGuy said:
Exactly, if the car was also doing 100MPH then yes it would, it was behind the bike because the car was doing less speed.

That's really not relevant though, is it?

The bike was where the bike was at the point of the car starting the manoeuvre - it's the clio driver's responsibility to see it. The car would have still been in the carriageway at crossover whether the bike was speeding or not.

cheesyboy · 5 Sep 2014 at 17:19

ThaReaperGuy said:
The starting point would have been different, the driver would have made the manoeuvre regardless of the situation of the bike and car, as the driver never saw them.

If the bike was doing 60MPH thus still behind the overtaken car, the Clio would have passed and the event a lucky near miss.

That's just a stupid argument.

"If he wasn't there then it wouldn't have happened"

Except he was there, at the point in time that the clio driver decided to cross the carriageway without checking.

Tonester0011 · 5 Sep 2014 at 17:19

ThaReaperGuy said:
If the bike was doing 60MPH thus still behind the overtaken car, the Clio would have passed and the event a lucky near miss.

Then we can also say if the bike was doing 130mph instead of 97 he would have missed the Clio. What a pointless exercise.

DaleTheWhale · 5 Sep 2014 at 17:20

cheesyboy said:
That's really not relevant though, is it?

The bike was where the bike was at the point of the car starting the manoeuvre - it's the clio driver's responsibility to see it. The car would have still been in the carriageway at crossover whether the bike was speeding or not.

Yes, but a collision wouldn't have happened, proven by the fact the that was over taken had hit the clio also. If the clio was also hit by the car then it would put 100% blame on the driver, but making the manoeuvre and travelling at speed = 2 factors which caused the incident.

Tonester0011 · 5 Sep 2014 at 17:22

ThaReaperGuy said:
Yes, but a collision wouldn't have happened, proven by the fact the that was over taken had hit the clio also. If the clio was also hit by the car then it would put 100% blame on the driver, but making the manoeuvre and travelling at speed = 2 factors which caused the incident.

See post above yours ^
If you're basing it on too fast, how about not fast enough. If the biker wasn't going a measly 97mph and doing a proper speed, 130+ he would have missed the car.

Hindsight is a *****!

cheesyboy · 5 Sep 2014 at 17:22

ThaReaperGuy said:
Yes, but a collision wouldn't have happened, proven by the fact the that was over taken had hit the clio also. If the clio was also hit by the car then it would put 100% blame on the driver, but making the manoeuvre and travelling at speed = 2 factors which caused the incident.

You're really going to pursue this line?

It's really, really stupid. Do you not see that?

If he'd stopped to tie his shoe laces before setting out, the car wouldn't have hit him either - does that make it his shoes' fault?

DaleTheWhale · 5 Sep 2014 at 17:26

cheesyboy said:
You're really going to pursue this line?

It's really, really stupid. Do you not see that?

If he'd stopped to tie his shoe laces before setting out, the car wouldn't have hit him either - does that make it his shoes' fault?

No, you're missing the fact the road is 60MPH, if that was followed then the situation would be different, that was another factor. The speed limit wasn't an optional factor making it a irrelevant point, had it been followed the bike would be in the same place the car was and avoided the clio.

Tonester0011 · 5 Sep 2014 at 17:28

But it's not, the speed doesn't matter. If he was going 60mph for his whole journey, yes he would have missed that Clio, but who's to say another identical one wasn't waiting for him. Speed wasn't the cause of the accident, it was the main contributer to his death however.

cheesyboy · 5 Sep 2014 at 17:29

ThaReaperGuy said:
No, you're missing the fact the road is 60MPH, if that was followed then the situation would be different, that was another factor. The speed limit wasn't an optional factor making it a irrelevant point, had it been followed the bike would be in the same place the car was and avoided the clio.

And what if he'd set off 2 minutes earlier and travelled at the limit so ended up in the same position, or even slightly closer to the Clio, travelling at the speed limit? The Clio would still have pulled out because he didn't look.

This is a stupid line you're pursuing. It makes no sense.

MooMoo444 · 5 Sep 2014 at 17:31

Tonester0011 said:
But it's not, the speed doesn't matter. If he was going 60mph for his whole journey, yes he would have missed that Clio, but who's to say another identical one wasn't waiting for him. Speed wasn't the cause of the accident, it was the main contributer to his death however.

To say speed wasn't the cause is purely satirical. If the bike was doing the speed limit, everyone would be fine.

LordSplodge · 5 Sep 2014 at 17:32

Tonester0011 said:
He was one handed for a few seconds, to say thankyou to the car moving out the way, in no way is that dangerous. His hand went promptly back on the bars afterwards, you're telling me you've never done that?

His speed is a shame as it paints the biker in a bad light, the cars fault

Situational. It's ok to take a hand off to wave thanks if the conditions are good. I don't think 100MPH approaching a junction is the place to do so. I don't take my hands off the bars of my bicycle to wave thanks if the conditions aren't safe to do so.

Of course the biker is painted in a bad light, he showed poor judgement of the road conditions and was doing 100MPH on a single carriageway approaching a junction. He was essentially gambling with his (or other peoples) life and lost the bet.

DaleTheWhale · 5 Sep 2014 at 17:35

cheesyboy said:
And what if he'd set off 2 minutes earlier and travelled at the limit so ended up in the same position, or even slightly closer to the Clio, travelling at the speed limit? The Clio would still have pulled out because he didn't look.

This is a stupid line you're pursuing. It makes no sense.

Again the driver looked and saw nothing on-coming. Looking at the above post about a crest in the road it's possible the driver didn't see them coming. I'm not saying the biker is at fault and the driver isn't I just think that both factors at that given time caused the accident. Remove one factor from either side and the accident wouldn't have happened.

That's my opinion and judgement of the situation.

@tonester, saying speed isn't a factor is a ridiculous statement, if the driver had seen the bike and was assuming a speed of 60MPH judging the distance they were away, pulled out and the bike hit the car doing 100MPH, speed doesn't matter right?

Tonester0011 · 5 Sep 2014 at 17:37

MooMoo444 said:
To say speed wasn't the cause is purely satirical. If the bike was doing the speed limit, everyone would be fine.

The chances of the biker surviving would increase the slower his speed, but fine? Doubt it.

LordSplodge said:
snip

Straight line, pretty safe to take your hands off the bars

A bike at 100 is pretty stable.

Xordium · 5 Sep 2014 at 17:41

Tonester0011 said:
Straight line, pretty safe to take your hands off the bars
A bike at 100 is pretty stable.

Excluding external factors ... and there are never any of them are there.

SPG · 5 Sep 2014 at 17:45

RIP fella,

As always Muppets will always blame the bike. The biker was going in a straight line end of story. Nothing more to say on the matter its clear cut, of a car driver not paying attention YET AGAIN.

So the moral of the story is never 97mph always TON it

OhEsEcks · 5 Sep 2014 at 17:47

ThaReaperGuy said:
Again the driver looked and saw nothing on-coming. Looking at the above post about a crest in the road it's possible the driver didn't see them coming. I'm not saying the biker is at fault and the driver isn't I just think that both factors at that given time caused the accident. Remove one factor from either side and the accident wouldn't have happened.

I agree with you and I ride bikes. The guy is going about a ton approaching a junction and he's just done an overtake so is on the right hand side of the left hand side of the road. Which puts him in the position of being completely out of view of any vehicle that would be turning. And for people not getting the speed thing... 100 mph is 44 metres per second. Just think about that for a second.

Guys like him always end up as road kill around Northern Ireland come the road racing season. They go to the races and get all giddy and back on their bikes to go home and then end up smashing into someone or something.