Motorcyclists Last Seconds Captured On GoPro

[TW]Fox · 7 Sep 2014 at 17:17

koolpc said:
Utter rubbish. If the guy on the bike had been doing the speed limit in all probability the car driver would have easily seen him!

Remember, the guy on the bike came very very fast from behind a slow car of which the guy turning saw. He probably didnt see the biker come up behind that slower car and over take him as the guy was going so fast!

Speed had a lot to do with it!!

So you know better than the court then?

cm1179 · 7 Sep 2014 at 17:21

what actually killed him was it a broken neck or internal organ failure?

LOAM · 7 Sep 2014 at 17:39

Burnsy2023 said:
Speed clearly was a factor but it comes down to two things for me: 1) That if a driver was paying proper attention to the road, they should have seen the bike, even travelling at speed. I understand that most people including myself sometime drive on "auto pilot" but that's no excuse for proper observation. 2) The car's actions because of this lack of observation mean that the biker would have had to take action to prevent a collision, be that breaking, swerving or otherwise.

None of that excuses the clearly excessive speed, but if the driver was paying the attention they should have then the accident wouldn't have happened. If the biker was travelling at a slower speed it may have still been a fatal accident, even at 60mph.

That's not to say the driver's actions were proven to be well below that of a careful and competent driver to reach a conviction, just that I would place more blame on the driver.

I totally agree, its a terrible manoeuvre by the car driver, that said, if this was me (and I have been in this situation, but not at these speeds);

I would be hard on brake at that point, probably earlier simply because I would be expecting that car to be stupid

cheesyboy · 7 Sep 2014 at 17:55

koolpc said:
Utter rubbish. If the guy on the bike had been doing the speed limit in all probability the car driver would have easily seen him!

Remember, the guy on the bike came very very fast from behind a slow car of which the guy turning saw. He probably didnt see the biker come up behind that slower car and over take him as the guy was going so fast!

Speed had a lot to do with it!!

THE CLIO DRIVER DIDN'T SEE THE CAR FOLLOWING THE BIKE!

It's been said about 100 times in the thread. He admitted to not seeing the bike OR the car following.

Spook187 · 7 Sep 2014 at 17:57

All the ones ****ging off the rider for speeding, so you never speed ever, i have not met one person in my entire life who has never broken the speed limit.

koolpc · 7 Sep 2014 at 17:59

Going that fast on the bike the biker had no chance of reacting to what the car did. He was going way to fast to do so.

Yes, the car driver should have had his eyes on the road and the biker but at the speed the biker was going it would have been impossible for the car driver to have realised how quickly the biker would be at the junction!

koolpc · 7 Sep 2014 at 18:00

Spook187 said:
All the ones ****ging off the rider for speeding, so you never speed ever, i have not met one person in my entire life who has never broken the speed limit.

100mph was not speeding it was excessive speeding!! Grossly so which cost him his life!

I_am_not_Carabia83 · 7 Sep 2014 at 18:06

The driver didn't see him?! He shouldn't be allowed on the road then.

I think the driver just misjudged it and thought he could squeeze through.

I see it all the time with drivers either pulling out of junctions/turnings that cause other drivers to slam on their brakes, or people changing lanes on the motorway completely oblivious to how fast cars are travelling.

Both the biker and driver were at fault though.

Unfortunately most people have the "It'll never happen to me" approach in life....

VoG · 7 Sep 2014 at 18:11

cm1179 said:
what actually killed him was it a broken neck or internal organ failure?

I should imagine at that kind of speed it'll be a take your pick scenario as his injuries would've been extensive to say the least.

UTmaniac · 7 Sep 2014 at 18:15

Depends what hit the trees beyond the contact point first.

ExRayTed · 7 Sep 2014 at 20:00

UTmaniac said:
Depends what hit the trees beyond the contact point first.

Yup, he came to a stop from 97mph very quickly. I can hear one significant impact before he comes to a stop in the grass.

It's been said in this thread already - the car driver caused the collision, the biker's speed contributed to the fatality.

PMKeates · 7 Sep 2014 at 20:10

LOAM said:

I'd like to quote this photo as I think it shows clearly that the car shouldn't have attempted the turn. That said, people chancing at those distances is something that happens to you, even as a car driver. Much like how you can't spot a mite of dust floating through the air when driving, it's harder to see a bike than a car and I presume bikers are very aware of that. It's a very unfortunate missed observation, high speed, poor crash protection i.e. a bike aka nothing.

platypus · 7 Sep 2014 at 20:39

Amp34 said:
It should also be illegal for cars not to drive with lights on during the day.

Its already a legal requirement in several countries and makes a massive difference in many places for all road users.

Why should it? The continuing prevelance and trend of DRL just makes bikes harder to see as it adds to the wash of light.

What difference are you alluding too?

mattyg · 7 Sep 2014 at 20:46

platypus said:
Why should it? The continuing prevelance and trend of DRL just makes bikes harder to see as it adds to the wash of light.

What difference are you alluding too?

How so?

PMKeates · 7 Sep 2014 at 20:58

platypus said:
Why should it? The continuing prevelance and trend of DRL just makes bikes harder to see as it adds to the wash of light.

I'm not quite sure DRLs add much to the wash of light from, you know, the sun?

Kenai · 7 Sep 2014 at 21:08

I think what he's getting at is that motorcycles use their headlights to aid being seen but are now worried about being 'hidden' amongst all the car lights. Rather than looking down a road and seeing 7 cars and a bike standing out with it's headlight, now you can look down a road and seeing 7 and a bike will be a mess of potentially 15 different lights, almost 'camouflaging' the bike.

How much actual merit there is to that I suppose is up for debate but that's what bikers have explained to me in the past.

Spook187 said:
All the ones ****ging off the rider for speeding, so you never speed ever, i have not met one person in my entire life who has never broken the speed limit.

Well there's doing 75 in an empty stretch of 60 limit and then there is doing 100 in a 60 past a junction. Everything has scales of severity and daftness.

Energize · 7 Sep 2014 at 21:45

Spook187 said:
All the ones ****ging off the rider for speeding, so you never speed ever, i have not met one person in my entire life who has never broken the speed limit.

I've can honestly say that I have never driven one handed at 100mph approaching a junction while overtaking cars and swerving all over the place.

mattyg · 7 Sep 2014 at 21:48

But you don't need to know whether its a car or a bike. You just need to know there is another vehicle there.

Unless it'll help distinguish whether or not the light belongs to a loon

Pestilence · 7 Sep 2014 at 22:18

LizardKing said:
One thing that's quite interesting about this set of pictures is he doesn't appear to a least try and brake going off the rpm.
Also looking at the position of the car cutting the corner, I'm willing to bet he did see the bike but thought he had would chance it without fully recognising the speed in which it was travelling.

That's what I thought, too, after re-watching the video. The way the car driver doesn't take up correct positioning at the junction and just cuts the line to get across makes me think that he DID see the motorcyclist in the distance, and thought he could make it through if he just cut short the maneuver. Unfortunately he misjudged the biker's excessive speed and, well... there's the result.

Easier in court to simply say "I didn't see him" and hope for a better outcome than "I saw him but thought I could get through before he reached me."

manoz · 8 Sep 2014 at 01:31

Pestilence said:
That's what I thought, too, after re-watching the video. The way the car driver doesn't take up correct positioning at the junction and just cuts the line to get across makes me think that he DID see the motorcyclist in the distance, and thought he could make it through if he just cut short the maneuver. Unfortunately he misjudged the biker's excessive speed and, well... there's the result.

Easier in court to simply say "I didn't see him" and hope for a better outcome than "I saw him but thought I could get through before he reached me."

As an armchair speculator I agree with this, Sometimes simply crossing the road I just miss a car cos I've misjudged its speed. I think it should be mandatory to wear high vis on the motorway(if you don't have a colourful bike or clothing already)