Step son in motorbike crash

Demon · 25 May 2012 at 13:29

Zefan said:
Would you care to show us all which posts are suggesting this? All anyone's said is it's his fault, not that he was really endangering anyone else!

Kaeo said:
I hope he gets done for dangerous driving tbh. Glad it was a car that came out infront of him and not a person crossing the road.

And a lot of talk of 'wreckless overtaking'.. do remember that whilst he was very stupid in his vigilance and risk assessment of the junction, the road ahead was clear for him to initiate the overtake, he wasn't overtaking on a blind bend, or any other manner of situation where it was not safe to have even initiated the overtake..

Zefan · 25 May 2012 at 13:37

Ah fair enough I missed that post! I don't think he was really a danger to anyone but himself in that instance to be honest.

Kaeo · 25 May 2012 at 13:49

Demon said:
And a lot of talk of 'wreckless overtaking'.. do remember that whilst he was very stupid in his vigilance and risk assessment of the junction, the road ahead was clear for him to initiate the overtake, he wasn't overtaking on a blind bend, or any other manner of situation where it was not safe to have even initiated the overtake..

Please explain what part of traffic stationary and backed up from traffic lights with nowhere to rejoin the flow of traffic is it clear to initiate an overtake? Filtering, yes, but overtaking, no.

therealnerd2 · 25 May 2012 at 14:23

desires said:
No the responsibility isn't with you. The responsibility for your life is and it is very wise to think this way but if your mind lapsed and you didn't think to watch your back and someone did pull out on you, would you have the same opinion that it was still your responsibility?

yep!

Demon · 25 May 2012 at 14:23

Kaeo said:
Please explain what part of traffic stationary and backed up from traffic lights with nowhere to rejoin the flow of traffic is it clear to initiate an overtake? Filtering, yes, but overtaking, no.

Did you miss the part where he was on a bike?

For example, he can legitimately start of slowly filtering down the outside, see that there the oncoming lane is completely clear up the road, increase his speed (to which point it technically becomes overtaking I guess), then at any point he wishes (front of queue, whatever) he slows down and is back to be classed as filtering..

Finglonga · 25 May 2012 at 14:23

Demon said:
And a lot of talk of 'wreckless overtaking'.. do remember that whilst he was very stupid in his vigilance and risk assessment of the junction, the road ahead was clear for him to initiate the overtake, he wasn't overtaking on a blind bend, or any other manner of situation where it was not safe to have even initiated the overtake..

He was overtaking at a junction . . . . .

4T5 · 25 May 2012 at 14:24

Have we condemned this lad to a hanging yet or shall I come back later ?

Demon · 25 May 2012 at 14:34

Finglonga said:
He was overtaking at a junction . . . . .

When we say junction, lets not get silly here, it was a 'side road' he was going by.. He failed to show enough caution whilst overtaking by that side road exit, but that's not illegal or wreckless to do so normally, should you exercise caution, not forgetting it takes another road user to exit from that side road accross your path who also fails to check it isn't clear before an accident occurs..

Haggisman · 25 May 2012 at 14:35

4T5 said:
Because the biker is more vulnerable & the car driver is safe. Only if it's 50/50 though.
Personally I ride like the Grandad I am & don't go anywhere unless I know it's safe I just think in a 50/50 case it should sway towards the person who ends up in hospital.
I'd feel the same if the car driver was hurt & the biker walked away unhurt, Unlikely as it is I would then side with the hurt car driver in a 50/50.

Only my opinion though.

I still don't see why being more or less vulnerable should have any bearing on blame whatsoever. Would you care to explain why you think it should?

4T5 · 25 May 2012 at 14:39

Think Blame is to strong a word, I would just like to see the injured party looked after if it's a 50/50.

Haggisman · 25 May 2012 at 14:59

4T5 said:
Think Blame is to strong a word, I would just like to see the injured party looked after if it's a 50/50.

Which is what insurance is for

I've nothing against that, I just don't think it's appropriate to apportion fault based on who was more injured, since the outcome has absolutely no effect on the cause of the incident.

Finglonga · 25 May 2012 at 17:06

Demon said:
When we say junction, lets not get silly here, it was a 'side road' he was going by..

Not being silly, if there is a side road emerging onto another road then that is a road junction and every biker (and other road user) knows you should not overtake at a junction. Riding bikes and driving cars for 30years has taught me to treat every other road user as an idiot.

miniyazz · 25 May 2012 at 17:39

I just can't believe no-one's picked up on the irony of 'wreckless overtaking'. Since in this case there were two wrecks.

DanF · 25 May 2012 at 18:41

Seems like two wrongs here which is making it difficult, she probably pulled out too fast but then again no-one would expect a biker doing that speed to be there but still she should have edged out if she didn't. The biker filtering at 35mph is just wrong, and not slowing down when a van reverses is just stupid. It's the first thing you learn when you start to filter, vision is everything so if it get's blocked or you notice gaps where things can emerge from you simply slow down. Filtering is a high risk manoeuvre, you've got to take responsibility when doing it. I kinda think he's in the wrong more then her in this situation because you're basically very vulnerable on a bike so you shouldn't put yourself in this kind of situation. Should probably be a 50:50 though.

Demon · 25 May 2012 at 18:41

Finglonga said:
Not being silly, if there is a side road emerging onto another road then that is a road junction and every biker (and other road user) knows you should not overtake at a junction. Riding bikes and driving cars for 30years has taught me to treat every other road user as an idiot.

Yes, we all have enough experience on here to know to treat every other road user as an idiot.. In this case it was two idiots coming together..

The Police clearly had all the evidence and a clear picture of what happened and haven't persued it, so they are satisfied it's just a very good and painful lesson both parties should have learnt..

If they where doing him for dangerous driving, or even driving without due care, I'd be happy to really have a pop at him for being 'reckless' in the sense he was doing something that could have ended with an innocent party being injured, but that is not the case..

Kind of sounds like we all agree on his lack of driving experience/ability, it's just how 'strongly' his recklessness is being labelled we don't all see eye to eye on..

One thing is for sure, he is the most vunerable as DanF mentions, he certainly owes it to himself to put more effort into riding more intelligently, because liability and legalities aside, it's his life that is far more at risk then an oblivious car driver, so needs to take that extra caution.

[TW]Fox · 25 May 2012 at 18:52

Demon said:
The Police clearly had all the evidence and a clear picture of what happened and haven't persued it

They rarely persue minor accidents like this - it's not worth getting the full crash investigation team out for a fender-bender. So they've probably not gathered all the evidence let alone used it to form a clear picture. Which to be honest is probably the right move, do we really want the police spending ages investigating every single minor traffic accident incase somebody could be handed 3 points for careless driving?

djkav · 25 May 2012 at 18:52

I'm a biker, and a car/van driver too.

I would say from the statements and the picture, that the biker should be to blame.

Filtering: The biker was filtering stationary traffic unsafely at 30-35 mph. I would say a max speed of 20 mph for filtering stationary traffic. Also, the biker was in the middle of opposite side. That is an over taking position.

The biker was knowingly on the opposite side, and should have reasonably expected to meet on coming traffic.

Also, the bikers' inexperience, failed to noticed the reversing van. A sign of a developing hazard.

The car drive can pull out slowly, considering that its a single carriageway and the view obstructed. As long as reasonable care is taken. Its also reasonable not to expect to meet another vehicle on your side head on. The motto is, don't over take if you can't pull back into the traffic flow safely.

I have been in similar situations on my bike, and I have not been travelling at more than 20mph, nor that far over the opposite side of the road.

Its not nice its happened, and I hope he does have a full speedy recovery. That picture doesn't help his case one bit

.

thecremeegg · 25 May 2012 at 20:14

This is why, to me, filtering should be made illegal. Twice today whilst sat in a long, occasionally moving queue of traffic on the A303 I had bikers filter past me at stupid speeds that had I not been alert (likely after an hour in the heat) I would have hit as I accelerated (wheels at an angle). Cars make do without, why can't bikes?

*awaits the backlash

*

DanF · 25 May 2012 at 20:22

meh they would still do it even if it was illegal, how will the police catch them if it's tail to tail traffic jam

so all it would inconvenience is us safer bikers

grudas · 25 May 2012 at 21:09

50/50 tbh.. he was going to fast and she was careless too.. can't see it going any other way.