Hard Hitting Motorbike Video

[Piece]

My summary on this video only:

Car driver: made a mistake, but drove legally.
Biker: didn't make a mistake, but drove illegally.

 

[Hacker Khan]

Yeh good answer I wasn't thinking that deeply into the circumstances rather a gut reaction as to how we apportion blame in general. My gut instinct (without knowing the law in full) is that the 50mph guy and the drinker are royally screwed, definitely the 50mph guy because he is speeding, more so the drinker (probably some pretty hefty jail time) even though he would have hit the child even without a drink, whilst the 40mph guy could (possibly) not have done anything wrong. Could a child step out in the road (lets say from behind a parked car) and the 50mph & drinker NOT get done?

What about if someone is doing 29 in a 30 limit past a primary school when it closes and hits a child? Is that person any better than someone who says is doing 45 in a 40 limit in which there are no pedestrians or even houses and a child just runs out from nowhere? (by the way this is rhetorical question, and I'm not after any answers from the moral maze we seem to be in)

It's much too difficult to make a judgement just knowing a few facts (speed being just one of them) and there is a reason why they do very in depth investigations after any road fatality.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

My summary on this video only:

Car driver: made a mistake, but drove legally.
Biker: didn't make a mistake, but drove illegally.

The mistake that you refer to constitutes Careless Driving or Driving Without Due Care & Attention both of which are offences under the Road Traffic Acts and, therefore, illegal.

We, all of us, will make mistakes but hopefully being reminded of the possible consequences, including prosecution, will help to reduce the number of those mistakes and severity of any accidents.

 

[Imurg]

But for God's sake this car driver, by his own admission, also failed to see the car shown in the video being overtaken by the bike.

With that level of attention deficit the car driver was, just like the biker, a terrible accident waiting to happen and was rightly convicted.

Whilst not backing the car driver to the hilt, I would like to make this point.
He says he didn't see either the bike or the car.
I think its safe to assume that he did actually have a look at some stage during the manoeuvre otherwise he wouldn't have reached the age he has.
When he looked down the road, the oncoming vehicles were probably getting on for 350 yards away - 350 yards.
Even if he saw the car and the bike he almost certainly dismissed them from his mind as being too far away to be of any relevance. Travelling at 60 mph they would have taken 10 or more seconds to get to him - more than enough time to get across.

Most people, when taking a right turn, will look ahead, maybe, 25 or more yards before they actually make the turn. Those last few yards are when most look into the new road and judge when they are going to turn. Your eyes are not ahead - that area has already been assessed. Seeing a vehicle(or not) 350 yards away will, for most, prompt you to make that turn.
Also, trying to gauge oncoming speed is difficult enough at "normal" speeds and in good light/conditions.
That road is tree/bush lined - it would be very easy to not see a bike 350 yards away let alone guage his oncoming speed.

The driver is obviously at fault but, for me, more lies at the feet of the biker.
He shouldn't have been going that speed - obvious.
He should have anticipated a potential problem and slowed - had he done so, he may be alive today
Had he not been exceeding the speed limit he may be alive today
Both of those things would have given the car driver more time to see him and react.
Yes, the driver failed in his duty and didn't see the rider but is that because the rider didn't give him enough time to see him..?

 

[NorfolkShaun]

Whilst not backing the car driver to the hilt, I would like to make this point.
He says he didn't see either the bike or the car.
I think its safe to assume that he did actually have a look at some stage during the manoeuvre otherwise he wouldn't have reached the age he has.
When he looked down the road, the oncoming vehicles were probably getting on for 350 yards away - 350 yards.
Even if he saw the car and the bike he almost certainly dismissed them from his mind as being too far away to be of any relevance. Travelling at 60 mph they would have taken 10 or more seconds to get to him - more than enough time to get across.

Most people, when taking a right turn, will look ahead, maybe, 25 or more yards before they actually make the turn. Those last few yards are when most look into the new road and judge when they are going to turn. Your eyes are not ahead - that area has already been assessed. Seeing a vehicle(or not) 350 yards away will, for most, prompt you to make that turn.
Also, trying to gauge oncoming speed is difficult enough at "normal" speeds and in good light/conditions.
That road is tree/bush lined - it would be very easy to not see a bike 350 yards away let alone guage his oncoming speed.

The driver is obviously at fault but, for me, more lies at the feet of the biker.
He shouldn't have been going that speed - obvious.
He should have anticipated a potential problem and slowed - had he done so, he may be alive today
Had he not been exceeding the speed limit he may be alive today
Both of those things would have given the car driver more time to see him and react.
Yes, the driver failed in his duty and didn't see the rider but is that because the rider didn't give him enough time to see him..?

Great post, I have to say the bold section nearly mirrors what the retired police officers opinion and I would have to agree with this.

 

[hors limite]

I think it is a good thing that this video has been made so widely available if it only succeeds in reminding some of the bike riding community of their inherent vulnerability. It was drummed into me when learning to ride a bike that I would always come off worst in a collision with another vehicle and therefore if I wanted to stay in one piece it was up to me to ride defensively and to try and anticipate the amazing variety of ways my fellow road users might devise to kill or injure me.
In saying this I am not in any way absolving car and other drivers of large and small metal boxes of their responsibility. I am just trying to emphasise that bike riders can't shrug off " fender benders" with a visit to the body shop. It was brought home to me with a vengeance when my father was in hospital having a knee replacement. A young guy in the next bed had misjudged a passing manoeuvre involving a skip lorry ( the sort with the arms that stick out on both sides at the back) his lower leg had hit the arm and had been severed below the knee.
If you decide to ride a motorbike you have the right to anticipate that other road users will drive responsibly. However, it would be a fool who would expect this to be the case.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Whilst not backing the car driver to the hilt, I would like to make this point.
He says he didn't see either the bike or the car.
I think its safe to assume that he did actually have a look at some stage during the manoeuvre otherwise he wouldn't have reached the age he has.
When he looked down the road, the oncoming vehicles were probably getting on for 350 yards away - 350 yards.
Even if he saw the car and the bike he almost certainly dismissed them from his mind as being too far away to be of any relevance. Travelling at 60 mph they would have taken 10 or more seconds to get to him - more than enough time to get across.

Most people, when taking a right turn, will look ahead, maybe, 25 or more yards before they actually make the turn. Those last few yards are when most look into the new road and judge when they are going to turn. Your eyes are not ahead - that area has already been assessed. Seeing a vehicle(or not) 350 yards away will, for most, prompt you to make that turn.
Also, trying to gauge oncoming speed is difficult enough at "normal" speeds and in good light/conditions.
That road is tree/bush lined - it would be very easy to not see a bike 350 yards away let alone guage his oncoming speed.

The driver is obviously at fault but, for me, more lies at the feet of the biker.
He shouldn't have been going that speed - obvious.
He should have anticipated a potential problem and slowed - had he done so, he may be alive today
Had he not been exceeding the speed limit he may be alive today
Both of those things would have given the car driver more time to see him and react.
Yes, the driver failed in his duty and didn't see the rider but is that because the rider didn't give him enough time to see him..?

On what are you basing your assumption that the car and bike were 350 yards away when he looked, or indeed failed to look. I have, from the outset, clearly agreed that the biker and his stupidly excessive speed had a major role in this accident.

However, from the video I cannot see that it is possible to assess the actions of the driver and, thus, we cannot apportion degrees of culpability.

From what I can see I would certainly not wish to have been a pillion passenger with this biker but then neither would I want to ride with this car-driver.

 

[Imurg]

On what are you basing your assumption that the car and bike were 350 yards away when he looked, or indeed failed to look. I have, from the outset, clearly agreed that the biker and his stupidly excessive speed had a major role in this accident.

Allegedly, the driver had 7 seconds to see the biker.
7 seconds at 97 mph is getting on for 350 yards....


And as to whether the driver looked or not - has any driver ever not looked at all when crossing traffic..?
They may not have looked properly but nobody, nobody, would not look at all.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Allegedly, the driver had 7 seconds to see the biker.
7 seconds at 97 mph is getting on for 350 yards....


And as to whether the driver looked or not - has any driver ever not looked at all when crossing traffic..?
They may not have looked properly but nobody, nobody, would not look at all.

But 7 seconds was apparently the time from when he could first have seen the bike until impact, that is not necessarily the same time as when he may have looked and judged he could complete the manoeuvre.

For all we know he may not have looked until 3 or 4 of those seconds had passed.

 

[Imurg]

If so, then the biker didn't give the driver enough time to see him.
At 50 yards a second, even if the driver looked 4 seconds before impact, the bike is still 200 yards away.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

If so, then the biker didn't give the driver enough time to see him.
At 50 yards a second, even if the driver looked 4 seconds before impact, the bike is still 200 yards away.

But you are still assuming that the driver looked.

Based upon personal experience I strongly dispute your claim that anybody would not look at all before attempting the turn, if by looking you mean properly looking rather than a cursory glance.

I have had it done to me both on a bike and in a car and in neither case was I speeding so the other driver(s) had ample time to make their judgement.

In any event neither you nor I know the full facts here so neither of us can judge which party was more to blame and there is nothing to be gained by speculation.

Suffice to say that the biker should not have been travelling at such speed and the car driver should have been paying more attention. We all can learn from those two facts.

 

[JustOne]

In any event neither you nor I know the full facts here so neither of us can judge which party was more to blame and there is nothing to be gained by speculation.

The beauty of the internet - we can discuss stuff based on opinion and speculation. :thup:

My speculation is that the driver looked, saw nothing in his immediate vicinity (only the subconscious acknowledgement that there was some space in the road) and pulled out... in the 3-4 seconds it took him to engage 1st gear and release the clutch the motorbike was on top of him.

 

[Fyldewhite]

Every new biker (or existing one for that matter) should be shown this video. Yes part of it it's release is to make drivers more aware and maybe take extra time at these type of junctions, I certainly do, and have done so more since me and my other half have been together (she's been riding for 12 years). Arguing over who was to blame or who saw what, when etc is both futile and to some extent irrelevant.

I'd guess that many car drivers have no idea how powerful these machines are. My GF's bike is only a mid size sports tourer but does 141mph and 0-60 in 3.7 seconds. The top end race bikes go much faster up to about 180mph. Point being that even if they are seen they can easily be disregarded as out of range by many drivers.....not saying that's right but maybe understandable.

Overwhelmingly to me is the message this sends to bikers in how riding with no thought for your own safety means that at some point you will come unstuck and you will give someone else the chance to make a mistake that will kill you......and as we see you can go from having that all important adrenaline rush to dead very quickly.

 

[Smiffy]

My old Kawasaki ZZR1400 was "restricted" to a top speed of 186mph.
Fastest I ever went on it was 155 and that was enough!
If I had been doing 180mph I'd be covering a mile every 20 seconds.
So if something pulled out in front of me 1/4 mile up the road I would have literally 5 seconds to react.
At 155mph my head was wobbling about to such an extent I could hardly see anything.
At 180 it would have obviously been worse.
It doesn't bear thinking about.

 

[harpo_72]

I have just completed my advanced driver training, it basically teaches you to be risk aware. The speed limit is adhered to and road markings are used to identify dangers. In this instance my approach would have been off throttle, foot covering the brake and ready to engage a lower gear, but also to have some chance of shedding speed. It seems in this case the motorcyclist was travelling too fast, no effort to read the road or dangers ahead.... I don't really understand why we have cars and bikes that exceed 100mph, legally we cannot use them and the majority don't have the skill to cope.
It does seem that the video is misinterpreted by some, but for those who are sensible it's a case of speed being an issue and human reaction times. I would argue that the road markings would have indicated the junction and highlighted the dangers it presented, not that the car turned in without looking. Had the biker been using the method I suggested he would have been able to react as would the driver of the car.

 

[gripitripit]

First time I watched this and I must admit I am a bit shaken. It more or less the same (minus the speed) of the bike accident I had 10 years ago. I was in a 30 zone and doing about 25 when a car pulled across me. I went flying in the air and landed with a bang. I was lucky and only had 2 broken big toes.
The driver of the car was convicted and had to do some sort of an awarness course.

In this one the driver of the car must take a large chunk of the blame as there was time to see the oncoming bike. It also could be said if the biker stuck to the limit and drove within the law he would not have been in this place at the same time.

Bikers....Just because your bike and go from 30 to 100 in seconds keep that speed off the road and do it on a track.....Car drivers....Think BIke..

 

[JCW]

Two wrongs ended up with one losing his life , his speeding caused his death , my friend lost a son in the same manner , he was 29 David and got cut up at a junction by some old dear , his father was never the same after that , worked all his life , lost his wife to cancer and his son to a bike crash. most bikers i see all speed , lots in between traffic too and a lot are not aware of the risk they are taking , you only need to hit a cat or a little nudge and at the speed of 97 mph you got no chance . my dad bought me a bike at 16 , i stop riding at 18 after losing 4 friends in a bike pile up , only reason i was spared was because i had a hot date that night , that was 1976 , bikers are their own worst enemy , powerful bikes on busy roads and lets be honest there are a lot of bad drivers around that never indicate , on mobiles , texting , more speed you do the more your life is at risk

 

[drdel]

I used to ride a very large BMW motorcycle frequently as it was a reliable way to get a sensible journey time and park in the city. However, over the years I noticed car drivers becoming more and more aggressive towards bikers often deliberately pulling out to the right and accelerating when I'd overtake.

Frequently car drivers would pull out of junctions, presumably because they hadn't seen me - which was hard to believe as the bike was big and bright red, I wore reflective clothing and always had the dipped beam on the headlight switched on.

I gave up riding.

Unfortunately in this case there are two wrongs, the biker was travelling too fast approaching a junction and the car driver did not give way and incorrectly turned right in front of approaching traffic.

 

[MattM]

I've got a few mates who are / were bikers. One of the 'badges' they talk about is to do double the speed limit in every classification, i.e.

60mph in a 30mph zone, 80 in a 40, 100 in a 50, etc

Some have done it '2 up'

Ridiculous, and not surprisingly they aren't all still alive.

Hope to god none of my kids ever want to ride a (motor)bike, not just because of the potential for them to make a mistake, but that car drivers like the one in the video will also make a mistake that could be fatal. Bikers are way more vulnerable than car drivers and should be very aware of that.

 

[dufferman]

What was the speed limit on the road? Was it a road the biker had travelled before? Just curious.

I took my CBT when 16 to get on my 50cc scooter back in the day. First thing the instructor said was to treat my bike like a car - that way I won't be involved in any accidents. Although he may not be 100% factually correct, the sentiment is true.

The biker in the video, was not acting like a car. So I guess the instructor was right.