Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 1,979
- Location
- Way up High.
this
Motorcyclists Last Seconds Captured On GoPro
- Thread starter RavenXXX2
- Start date
this
Traveling at 60 he would have been on top of her and stoves into the car, people are not defending the biker, he made the accident far worse, however the car cause the accident and if the biker had been traveling at the speed limit would have still caused an accident. which is why they are both at fault. Not one sided like you think.
Combine with her own testimony, she didn't see the biker or the car, so how can she possibly misjudged the sped
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,820
- Location
- Falling...
Good thing you weren't involved in the court case then! The experts and the police even concluded that the driver was responsible, though as has been said the bike rider's actions were certainly a factor in the incident, but not the conclusive one.
Not that at all. As that's comparing it to a stationery vehicle. What an utterly dumb calculation.
The speed difference resulted in the bike arriving 1.3 seconds earlier. Or in other words Clio would have been 2m further on in the turn, as the car didn't see the bike or the car, she would have still pulled out, the Clio is 3.7m long, so bike would still have crashed, just 2 metres further to the rear. Still not close to clearing the Clio.
The driver admitted not looking. From the video, it's clear that the driver didn't look. On the other hand, the biker was playing the role of classic moronic "I can go fast, me!" motorcyclist.
It's easy to side with the motorist I guess - I'm sure we've all had to suffer morons doing stupid things on bikes on countless occasions. Had one overtake me yesterday. I had my right indicator on, he was speeding. Luckily I just caught him in my peripheral vision as I was starting to turn.
It's easy to side with the motorist I guess - I'm sure we've all had to suffer morons doing stupid things on bikes on countless occasions. Had one overtake me yesterday. I had my right indicator on, he was speeding. Luckily I just caught him in my peripheral vision as I was starting to turn.
What a mess.....couldn't see this posted.
This kind of answers my earlier question.
I am actually very concerned about how it is taken for granted that the driver didn't look properly simply because they admitted to not doing so at the time!
I think the courts/justice system has a big problem with comprehending how memory actually works!
To my mind it is entirely possible (Likey even) that somebody experiencing a traumatic incident (Like having the front of their car sheered off in a motor accident!) would end up having extremely limited recollection of the events leading up to it.
In the event of a concussion, I would expect the 7 seconds (The short term memory buffer) or so immediately preceding the event to be irrecoverably lost.
(Count to seven slowly! It is a long time!)
Just because somebody admits in the immediate aftermath of such an event to not remembering seeing either the oncoming motorbike OR THE CAR does not mean that they didnt!
(Indeed, for me, admitting that they didn't see the car clinches it for me! This admission was as a result of a memory failure! NOT as a result of an observation failure at the time!)
It's probably more to do with the thread being full of self righteous car drivers who dislike everyone else on the road. Most of them will speed too (although not to that extent) and I'm guessing the average speed on that road is probably 70mph...
well said that man!
The point is though even if he was one of the few doing the speed limit he would still have hit the car... The difference in speed is one or two seconds travel time at that distance.
The car driver pulled out without looking, the motorcyclist (possibly) died, rather than being seriously injured, because he was doing 97. If the car driver had been looking properly they wouldn't have pulled out.
Heres my analysis.
She observed the oncoming traffic and thought she could nip through without waiting!
This is why she cut the corner
She took a chance certainly. but under "normal" circumstances the 4 second or so gap would have been sufficient to make the turn,(especially from a "Rolling start") albeit with very little safety margin !
Unfortunately it wasn't a 4 second gap because the bike was doing 100MPH! it was only a 2 second gap.
(The biker also made the classic error of turning into the danger, which didn't help! one should generally try to pass behind the obstructing vehicle rather than in-front of it)
She was certainly careless in that even at normal speeds she would have been cutting it a bit fine (In the US I beleive it would be teermed "Failure to yield")
But I wouldn't find her guilty of anything more than that. The Bikers own contribution was his own responsibility, not hers!
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 1,625
This is why I have given up on 2 wheels, I found the speed would always creep up to a ton or more. It is all very well blaming the driver but 100mph is way , way too fast [yes I know the legal limit is 60] on a road with so many junctions. youtube is full of videos of bikers having near misses, coming off and walking away. I hope some watch this video and think a little harder about what they are doing.
RIP
RIP
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,820
- Location
- Falling...
EVen at 60 it would have been a close call.
This has nothing to do with the "2 wheels" and everything to do with the rider of the wheels
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 1,625
No one buys a fast bike and rides it slow
It's a shame to see so much pedantic argument about 2 seconds longer this or 30mph that rather than everyone just taking some simple lessons from this unfortunate accident.
Doing 100mph near or past junctions is not sensible.
Overtaking near or past junctions at 100mph or 60mph or any speed is not necessarily sensible.
When crossing opposing lanes of traffic you must be absolutely totally sure you know what is or isn't coming. Never look just once.
Never assume other vehicles will behave as you expect.
Always try to give yourself options. Neither party in this case drove in a manner that gave them any other options.
You can only trust yourself on the road and so you owe it to yourself to drive in a manner that gives you the best chance of avoiding accidents and relying as little as possible on other drivers.
Doing 100mph near or past junctions is not sensible.
Overtaking near or past junctions at 100mph or 60mph or any speed is not necessarily sensible.
When crossing opposing lanes of traffic you must be absolutely totally sure you know what is or isn't coming. Never look just once.
Never assume other vehicles will behave as you expect.
Always try to give yourself options. Neither party in this case drove in a manner that gave them any other options.
You can only trust yourself on the road and so you owe it to yourself to drive in a manner that gives you the best chance of avoiding accidents and relying as little as possible on other drivers.
As I said.
I'm not saying it wasn't!
(Though I wouldn't even do 60 past a junction! 50 Tops!)
She took a chance (One that everybody has done from time to time no doubt)
Unfortunately He took a somewhat bigger chance by riding through a junction at 100MPH! (One that most people do not take! ever!)
It is reasonable that she should be held accountable for her own errors, it is not reasonable that she should be held accountable for his!
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 7,774
- Location
- Under the Hill
Very true but the rider would surely have time to brake to lessen the impact speed further.