Family allow use of fatal crash video for safety campaign.
Discussion
Devil2575 said:
I suspect most of us think of speeding as a grey area. In certain circumstances it is kind of ok, after all most of us do it some of the time. However some people will defend it no matter what the circumstances and no matter how flawed their argument is.
I think it can be quite a black and white area.Be able to stop in the space you can see to be clear or reasonably expect to stay clear.
I don't expect busy junctions to ever be places that I can expect to stay clear, and that is why conventionally people ease back a bit at them, not accelerate into them while overtaking!
Mr Whippy said:
Devil2575 said:
I suspect most of us think of speeding as a grey area. In certain circumstances it is kind of ok, after all most of us do it some of the time. However some people will defend it no matter what the circumstances and no matter how flawed their argument is.
I think it can be quite a black and white area.Be able to stop in the space you can see to be clear or reasonably expect to stay clear.
I don't expect busy junctions to ever be places that I can expect to stay clear, and that is why conventionally people ease back a bit at them, not accelerate into them while overtaking!
I was simply saying that the whole issue of speeding is something of a grey area and that how people feel about it depends very much on the circumstances.
Devil2575 said:
I agree with your point.
I was simply saying that the whole issue of speeding is something of a grey area and that how people feel about it depends very much on the circumstances.
A sensible speed is one that gives plenty of time to stop on your own side of the road, so there is a grey area. There is driving sensibly, driving dangerously fast, and driving at a speed that won't cause any issues in itself but just doesn't give a safety margin. The type of behaviour that would cause a traffic cop to give a quiet word, but a speed camera either ignores or sends a bill for.I was simply saying that the whole issue of speeding is something of a grey area and that how people feel about it depends very much on the circumstances.
Dr Jekyll said:
A sensible speed is one that gives plenty of time to stop on your own side of the road, so there is a grey area. There is driving sensibly, driving dangerously fast, and driving at a speed that won't cause any issues in itself but just doesn't give a safety margin. The type of behaviour that would cause a traffic cop to give a quiet word, but a speed camera either ignores or sends a bill for.
That's what speed cameras are supposed to do. Perhaps they ought to have bad driving cameras, but I should imagine that motoring lawyers would love such things as the subsequent arguments in court would be endless.The biker was going too fast for the conditions. No-one disputes that. But the Clio bloke managed to "not see" an approaching bike with its headlight on from only 200 yards away. 200 yards is really not very far at all. The fisheye camera lens makes it look much further. He also claimed not to have seen the car behind the bike.
I think he thought he'd quickly nip across so as not to have to wait for everything to pass. So he cut the corner. The only defence open to him was that he didn't see the bike.
Anyway, tragic stuff all round.
I think he thought he'd quickly nip across so as not to have to wait for everything to pass. So he cut the corner. The only defence open to him was that he didn't see the bike.
Anyway, tragic stuff all round.
James McScotty said:
The biker was going too fast for the conditions. No-one disputes that. But the Clio bloke managed to "not see" an approaching bike with its headlight on from only 200 yards away. 200 yards is really not very far at all. The fisheye camera lens makes it look much further. He also claimed not to have seen the car behind the bike.
I think he thought he'd quickly nip across so as not to have to wait for everything to pass. So he cut the corner. The only defence open to him was that he didn't see the bike.
Anyway, tragic stuff all round.
There was another defence open to him (up til the point at which he claimed he hadn't seen it), that he had seen the bike but thought there was time for him to get across. It's the sort of decision motorists turning right off main roads are making all the time. One of the factors in deciding whether to go or not is how long you've got to complete the turn before the oncoming traffic arrives.I think he thought he'd quickly nip across so as not to have to wait for everything to pass. So he cut the corner. The only defence open to him was that he didn't see the bike.
Anyway, tragic stuff all round.
If the bike had been going at 60 I daresay there would have been time for him to get across.
singlecoil said:
James McScotty said:
The biker was going too fast for the conditions. No-one disputes that. But the Clio bloke managed to "not see" an approaching bike with its headlight on from only 200 yards away. 200 yards is really not very far at all. The fisheye camera lens makes it look much further. He also claimed not to have seen the car behind the bike.
I think he thought he'd quickly nip across so as not to have to wait for everything to pass. So he cut the corner. The only defence open to him was that he didn't see the bike.
Anyway, tragic stuff all round.
There was another defence open to him (up til the point at which he claimed he hadn't seen it), that he had seen the bike but thought there was time for him to get across. It's the sort of decision motorists turning right off main roads are making all the time. One of the factors in deciding whether to go or not is how long you've got to complete the turn before the oncoming traffic arrives.I think he thought he'd quickly nip across so as not to have to wait for everything to pass. So he cut the corner. The only defence open to him was that he didn't see the bike.
Anyway, tragic stuff all round.
If the bike had been going at 60 I daresay there would have been time for him to get across.
singlecoil said:
There was another defence open to him (up til the point at which he claimed he hadn't seen it), that he had seen the bike but thought there was time for him to get across. It's the sort of decision motorists turning right off main roads are making all the time. One of the factors in deciding whether to go or not is how long you've got to complete the turn before the oncoming traffic arrives.
If the bike had been going at 60 I daresay there would have been time for him to get across.
Fortunately the idiot on the motorcycle didn't hurt anyone.If the bike had been going at 60 I daresay there would have been time for him to get across.
A speed camera can use advanced technology to detect speeds of an object approaching at ludicrous speeds but no ordinary driver could have made that judgement, particularly as motorcyclists routinely use high beam and therefore blind other road users.
I suspect that with a better lawyer the defendant would have been found not guilty and therefore be able to free himself of any guilt as he moves on with his life.
This biker, like many, wasn't going anywhere. He was out using the road for pleasure, and his pleasure was extreme speed. He wasn't in a rush, he was speeding, showing off, getting an adrenaline kick. I would suggest that he probably drove like this on his bike every time he went out on his bike. As do many. They commute all week in their rep mobiles or white vans, and at he weekend ride the roads like they were competing in some imaginary TT race.
Eventually, a risk too many, or they exceed their own skill level, or they meet some other road user not fully concentrating, and the results are catastrophic. It makes you wonder if all super bikes should be fitted with some kind of tele metrics recording devices, so that when the police recover the wreckage and body they can explain to the family that although maybe someone pulled in front of them at a junction, for the previous x miles they had been riding like a complete dick anyway, using the roads as a race track.
You have to make allowances for other road users perhaps making mistakes and errors or lapses of concentration or just being bloody useless or even being dangerous. But you can't make these allowances at 100mph through a junction. The rider that died made no allowances for other road users and it doesn't matter that the Clio driver said he didn't see the biker because the biker gave himself no chance of avoiding this poor driver.
It's a road used by many people of many differing levels of skill, concentration and ability. It's not a race track there for your enjoyment.
Eventually, a risk too many, or they exceed their own skill level, or they meet some other road user not fully concentrating, and the results are catastrophic. It makes you wonder if all super bikes should be fitted with some kind of tele metrics recording devices, so that when the police recover the wreckage and body they can explain to the family that although maybe someone pulled in front of them at a junction, for the previous x miles they had been riding like a complete dick anyway, using the roads as a race track.
You have to make allowances for other road users perhaps making mistakes and errors or lapses of concentration or just being bloody useless or even being dangerous. But you can't make these allowances at 100mph through a junction. The rider that died made no allowances for other road users and it doesn't matter that the Clio driver said he didn't see the biker because the biker gave himself no chance of avoiding this poor driver.
It's a road used by many people of many differing levels of skill, concentration and ability. It's not a race track there for your enjoyment.
Byteme said:
Fortunately the idiot on the motorcycle didn't hurt anyone.
A speed camera can use advanced technology to detect speeds of an object approaching at ludicrous speeds but no ordinary driver could have made that judgement, particularly as motorcyclists routinely use high beam and therefore blind other road users.
I suspect that with a better lawyer the defendant would have been found not guilty and therefore be able to free himself of any guilt as he moves on with his life.
As I've asked before. If the biker had been going at a sensible speed and therefore managed to avoid the car, would the driver still be blameless? A speed camera can use advanced technology to detect speeds of an object approaching at ludicrous speeds but no ordinary driver could have made that judgement, particularly as motorcyclists routinely use high beam and therefore blind other road users.
I suspect that with a better lawyer the defendant would have been found not guilty and therefore be able to free himself of any guilt as he moves on with his life.
Dr Jekyll said:
Byteme said:
Fortunately the idiot on the motorcycle didn't hurt anyone.
A speed camera can use advanced technology to detect speeds of an object approaching at ludicrous speeds but no ordinary driver could have made that judgement, particularly as motorcyclists routinely use high beam and therefore blind other road users.
I suspect that with a better lawyer the defendant would have been found not guilty and therefore be able to free himself of any guilt as he moves on with his life.
As I've asked before. If the biker had been going at a sensible speed and therefore managed to avoid the car, would the driver still be blameless? A speed camera can use advanced technology to detect speeds of an object approaching at ludicrous speeds but no ordinary driver could have made that judgement, particularly as motorcyclists routinely use high beam and therefore blind other road users.
I suspect that with a better lawyer the defendant would have been found not guilty and therefore be able to free himself of any guilt as he moves on with his life.
The incident under discussion is somewhere in the middle. We all have a view about degrees of blame and the court had theirs. There's not much to add really. No-one is going to change their position.
TTmonkey said:
This biker, like many, wasn't going anywhere. He was out using the road for pleasure, and his pleasure was extreme speed. He wasn't in a rush, he was speeding, showing off, getting an adrenaline kick...
This is an uncompromising view, and although I wouldn't have put it that way myself, I would have to say it's absolutely true.I see these guys most days myself on the main road near here. I'm told there's a website where they post their times.
The driver must still have been in shock when admitting he hadn't seen either vehicle coming towards him. I mean who makes a turn like that that without looking at all? Subconsciously I'm sure he's scanned the horizon, noted a decent gap and gone for it, without necessarily focusing on specific vehicles.
I'm sure we've all been there - the heart stopping moment you take a second glance and stamp on the brake when the cyclist or biker who was in your peripheral vision first time around registers with you
I'm sure we've all been there - the heart stopping moment you take a second glance and stamp on the brake when the cyclist or biker who was in your peripheral vision first time around registers with you
TTmonkey said:
This biker, like many, wasn't going anywhere. He was out using the road for pleasure, and his pleasure was extreme speed. He wasn't in a rush, he was speeding, showing off, getting an adrenaline kick. I would suggest that he probably drove like this on his bike every time he went out on his bike. As do many.
Did you actually watch AND listen to the entire film or just the collision? I ask because it clearly explains what David was doing that day. He had been out for the day with friends at a bike event and was on his way home. He wasn't just out 'going nowhere ' as you state.The facts are, and backed up by Police investigation AND witnesses that the Clio caused the collision. The Clio driver made a statement later in the station that he did not see David OR the other oncoming vehicle. Yet witnesses behind the Clio statef that they DID see both! Therefore the Clio driver either didn't bother looking at all or decided he could make it across regardless of oncoming traffic. He was in a hurry to cross because he wasn't in the correct position to make the turn, he had to swan neck.
I have read ever post on this 21 page thread and the sheer ignorance of some comments astounds me.
Nobody is doubting David was reckless in his choice of speed. He didn't stand a chance of avoiding this incident however if the Clio had paid attention to oncoming traffic and waited, it wouldn't have happened.
I sincerely hope David's mother hasn't heard of this thread and read it because it appears to me many of the posters think they never make mistakes or lack judgement.
Ad I said before, David paid the ultimate price in this for someone else's mistake. The driver pays with guilt unless they don't have a conscience.
Nobody 'wins' in this!
JottersMum said:
I have read ever post on this 21 page thread and the sheer ignorance of some comments astounds me.
People have put forward their various opinions. None of them have been 'ignorant' as you put it. If you feel that opinions that are not the same as yours are 'ignorant' then you are going to come across a lot of ignorance on this and pretty much every other forum.And as to a previous post by someone that the only reason bikers wear helmet cams is to record themselves speeding etc.... Moronic and ignorant!!
Helmet cams are 90% used by bikers wanting to ensure they have evidence against those that cause collisions by pulling out into them, those who go to overtake without checking mirrors and
indicating first that pull straight into a biker! And yes, they need them because far too many drivers regardless of them knowing it was their error think they can blame the biker and get away with it.
Helmet cams are 90% used by bikers wanting to ensure they have evidence against those that cause collisions by pulling out into them, those who go to overtake without checking mirrors and
indicating first that pull straight into a biker! And yes, they need them because far too many drivers regardless of them knowing it was their error think they can blame the biker and get away with it.
JottersMum said:
Nobody is doubting David was reckless in his choice of speed. He didn't stand a chance of avoiding this incident however if the Clio had paid attention to oncoming traffic and waited, it wouldn't have happened.
If he had been doing 60 instead of 97 it wouldn't have happened - he'd gave arrived at the point of impact 3 seconds later and the Clio would have been clear by then.If he'd been doing 60 and not 97 he'd have taken 1 minute to cover the mile before the junction, not 37 seconds and he would never have even seen the Clio.
His speed was the root cause of the accident.
singlecoil said:
People have put forward their various opinions. None of them have been 'ignorant' as you put it. If you feel that opinions that are not the same as yours are 'ignorant' then you are going to come across a lot of ignorance on this and pretty much every other forum.
I didn't say every post. Some have stated, regardless of the evidence put forward in a Court of Law, that the driver was not at fault at all. They put the blame squarely on the biker. To not pay attention to the details given in this case and come to an opinion different to those who are highly trained in investigating collisions is ignorant imo because if those keyboard warriors are that knowledgeable without the facts the investigating team had, they should join the police and show us they can do a better job.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff