Family allow use of fatal crash video for safety campaign.
Discussion
James McScotty said:
Just watch the film again. The Clio driver had an unobstructed view down a straight road for four seconds before the crash. That's sufficient time to see things, and stop. The bike was only 200 yards away to start with, with its headlight on. Despite all that, the Clio driver decided to cut across the corner, and hit the bike virtually head-on.
Every time I've viewed that film I'm left with the feeling that that was an unbelievably bad piece of driving. Utterly appalling. If it had been a doddery 85 year old grandma driving, then perhaps you could say poor thing needs her licence taken away, but a 28 year old bloke?
I've watched the film several times. Asked to decide whether the driver deliberately placed himself where the bike would hit him, or thought he had time to get across safely, I'm going to choose the latter. There's no other satisfactory explanation. He went because he thought he had time.Every time I've viewed that film I'm left with the feeling that that was an unbelievably bad piece of driving. Utterly appalling. If it had been a doddery 85 year old grandma driving, then perhaps you could say poor thing needs her licence taken away, but a 28 year old bloke?
singlecoil said:
Cars have to be able to make right turns off main roads and a lot of the time they have to do that when they can see traffic coming towards them, especially on long straight-ish busy roads. That being the case it's reasonable for them to assume that the oncoming traffic is approaching at a sensible speed.
No it isn't, any more than it's reasonable for the biker to assume that anyone wishing to cross the lane will refrain from pulling out in front of him.As I've said before, you watch the vehicle approaching to judge it's speed. You don't say: 'Nobody ever exceeds a speed limit and it will take me 2.5 seconds to cross this junction so I'll just check the approaching vehicle is more than 221 feet away when I pull out.'
singlecoil said:
I've watched the film several times. Asked to decide whether the driver deliberately placed himself where the bike would hit him, or thought he had time to get across safely, I'm going to choose the latter. There's no other satisfactory explanation. He went because he thought he had time.
That's a classic false dichotomy. How about a third option: he wasn't paying attention?singlecoil said:
I've watched the film several times. Asked to decide whether the driver deliberately placed himself where the bike would hit him, or thought he had time to get across safely, I'm going to choose the latter. There's no other satisfactory explanation. He went because he thought he had time.
I'd think "I didn't look properly" would be an equally satisfactory explanation, no? It's just not possible in your mind whatsoever that the driver is telling the truth and he didn't see the approaching bike nor car?
Wow..
singlecoil said:
The driver doesn't have any grounds for an appeal.
Especially after he mucked up his defence by claiming he hadn't seen the bike.
But it's my belief (and I am not alone in this) that the driver saw the bike and figured he had time to get across, and he would have got across if the bike had been going at a sensible speed.
I think that sums it up. The car driver was naive/in shock and the police need a head on a block for a serious accident these days for the stats, so were only too happy to take advantage. Obviously if the motorcyclist had survived, he would have been prosecuted (too).Especially after he mucked up his defence by claiming he hadn't seen the bike.
But it's my belief (and I am not alone in this) that the driver saw the bike and figured he had time to get across, and he would have got across if the bike had been going at a sensible speed.
We all know after an accident the stock phrase is "I didn't see...". It isn't to be taken literally, it has many connotations. In reality he probably meant he didn't recognize the hazard (because he was unaccustomed to judging such massively inappropriate speed).
The motorcyclist made the conscious decision to deliberately drive unlawfully and recklessly for near the entirety of his journey it appears, at 'suicidal' speed, that left no room for error. The driver made one unintentional error of judgement.
It's obvious where the majority of the blame should lie.
Well put!
I think many drivers would fall for failing to appreciate the bikers inappropriate speed in the same circumstances, and pull across.
Like I said earlier, to expect road drivers to be effective at and compensate for others dangerous driving is quite a big stretch, especially when that driving is way beyond what any normal person would expect in those conditions.
If we are to expect 100mph+ overtaking bikers at busy junctions, then we need to expect the same round every blind bend, over every blind crest, out of every junction we plan to turn into.
We simply can't use the roads like that. We have to expect that most road users are using them appropriately.
If others decide to do things very well out of the ordinary, and dangerous irrespective of resultant accidents that may or may not occur, then to offer those people significant protections in law over those people falling victim to their dangerous driving by technicalities of right of way, is just madness.
Dave
I think many drivers would fall for failing to appreciate the bikers inappropriate speed in the same circumstances, and pull across.
Like I said earlier, to expect road drivers to be effective at and compensate for others dangerous driving is quite a big stretch, especially when that driving is way beyond what any normal person would expect in those conditions.
If we are to expect 100mph+ overtaking bikers at busy junctions, then we need to expect the same round every blind bend, over every blind crest, out of every junction we plan to turn into.
We simply can't use the roads like that. We have to expect that most road users are using them appropriately.
If others decide to do things very well out of the ordinary, and dangerous irrespective of resultant accidents that may or may not occur, then to offer those people significant protections in law over those people falling victim to their dangerous driving by technicalities of right of way, is just madness.
Dave
Mr GrimNasty said:
singlecoil said:
The driver doesn't have any grounds for an appeal.
Especially after he mucked up his defence by claiming he hadn't seen the bike.
But it's my belief (and I am not alone in this) that the driver saw the bike and figured he had time to get across, and he would have got across if the bike had been going at a sensible speed.
I think that sums it up. The car driver was naive/in shock and the police need a head on a block for a serious accident these days for the stats, so were only too happy to take advantage. Obviously if the motorcyclist had survived, he would have been prosecuted (too).Especially after he mucked up his defence by claiming he hadn't seen the bike.
But it's my belief (and I am not alone in this) that the driver saw the bike and figured he had time to get across, and he would have got across if the bike had been going at a sensible speed.
We all know after an accident the stock phrase is "I didn't see...". It isn't to be taken literally, it has many connotations. In reality he probably meant he didn't recognize the hazard (because he was unaccustomed to judging such massively inappropriate speed).
The motorcyclist made the conscious decision to deliberately drive unlawfully and recklessly for near the entirety of his journey it appears, at 'suicidal' speed, that left no room for error. The driver made one unintentional error of judgement.
It's obvious where the majority of the blame should lie.
Maybe instead, try to learn something from this that will help you prevent an incident like this occurring.
Mr Whippy said:
Well put!
I think many drivers would fall for failing to appreciate the bikers inappropriate speed in the same circumstances, and pull across.
Like I said earlier, to expect road drivers to be effective at and compensate for others dangerous driving is quite a big stretch, especially when that driving is way beyond what any normal person would expect in those conditions.
If we are to expect 100mph+ overtaking bikers at busy junctions, then we need to expect the same round every blind bend, over every blind crest, out of every junction we plan to turn into.
We simply can't use the roads like that. We have to expect that most road users are using them appropriately.
If others decide to do things very well out of the ordinary, and dangerous irrespective of resultant accidents that may or may not occur, then to offer those people significant protections in law over those people falling victim to their dangerous driving by technicalities of right of way, is just madness.
Dave
The really dangerous piece of driving was the car's. When it began to cross the line, the bike was only 50 yards away! If you think it's acceptable to pull across in front of another vehicle on a NSL A-road when that vehicle is only 50 yards away, you need to retake your test. Even at 60 mph, that vehicle will be on you in less than 2 seconds.I think many drivers would fall for failing to appreciate the bikers inappropriate speed in the same circumstances, and pull across.
Like I said earlier, to expect road drivers to be effective at and compensate for others dangerous driving is quite a big stretch, especially when that driving is way beyond what any normal person would expect in those conditions.
If we are to expect 100mph+ overtaking bikers at busy junctions, then we need to expect the same round every blind bend, over every blind crest, out of every junction we plan to turn into.
We simply can't use the roads like that. We have to expect that most road users are using them appropriately.
If others decide to do things very well out of the ordinary, and dangerous irrespective of resultant accidents that may or may not occur, then to offer those people significant protections in law over those people falling victim to their dangerous driving by technicalities of right of way, is just madness.
Dave
Obviously the bike is going too fast, but that's no excuse.
Edited by James McScotty on Friday 12th September 00:25
James McScotty said:
Mr Whippy said:
Well put!
I think many drivers would fall for failing to appreciate the bikers inappropriate speed in the same circumstances, and pull across.
Like I said earlier, to expect road drivers to be effective at and compensate for others dangerous driving is quite a big stretch, especially when that driving is way beyond what any normal person would expect in those conditions.
If we are to expect 100mph+ overtaking bikers at busy junctions, then we need to expect the same round every blind bend, over every blind crest, out of every junction we plan to turn into.
We simply can't use the roads like that. We have to expect that most road users are using them appropriately.
If others decide to do things very well out of the ordinary, and dangerous irrespective of resultant accidents that may or may not occur, then to offer those people significant protections in law over those people falling victim to their dangerous driving by technicalities of right of way, is just madness.
Dave
The really dangerous piece of driving was the car's. When it began to cross the line, the bike was only 50 yards away! If you think it's acceptable to pull across in front of another vehicle on a NSL A-road when that vehicle is only 50 yards away, you need to retake your test. Even at 60 mph, that vehicle will be on you in less than 2 seconds.I think many drivers would fall for failing to appreciate the bikers inappropriate speed in the same circumstances, and pull across.
Like I said earlier, to expect road drivers to be effective at and compensate for others dangerous driving is quite a big stretch, especially when that driving is way beyond what any normal person would expect in those conditions.
If we are to expect 100mph+ overtaking bikers at busy junctions, then we need to expect the same round every blind bend, over every blind crest, out of every junction we plan to turn into.
We simply can't use the roads like that. We have to expect that most road users are using them appropriately.
If others decide to do things very well out of the ordinary, and dangerous irrespective of resultant accidents that may or may not occur, then to offer those people significant protections in law over those people falling victim to their dangerous driving by technicalities of right of way, is just madness.
Dave
Obviously the bike is going too fast, but that's no excuse.
And it itself isn't also really dangerous?
Yeah the car driver did wrong, by accident, probably in a chain of mis-calculations and assumptions based on the road users around them all driving in a normal fashion... not expecting to have to keep an eye out down the road perpetually just in case fast bikers overtake into their desired path.
The biker on the other hand knowingly went dangerously fast in a dangerous location.
One was dangerous by choice, the other by accident in response to a situation they were probably not expecting.
Dave
fandango_c said:
TTmonkey said:
WinstonWolf said:
...... Had the driver obeyed that law the accident would never have happened either. In this case it is the compound result of two mistakes occurring at the same time.
This is not really true either. Nearly every driver questioned when involved in a Car/bike junction accident say that yes they did look, and no they didnt see the biker. Its a well known phenomena that scientists and the biking community are trying to understand. Many people 'zone out' when driving. 100% concentration at all times seems beyond the normal persons ability. There are suspected brain conditions that are as yetscientifically unknown and undetectable that cause memory loss, concentration lapses and judjement issues.
It explains how someone can look, but not see. Worth reading and understanding to improve ones observation skills.
Look at the vast majority of posts in here, it's mainly pick a side, then argue it is the other party's fault. This link has been posted about ten times now, and despite being full of absolutly top notch information & ways to improve your observation performance, it has been largely ignored.
people just won't take responsibility for themselves, it's always someone else's fault isnt it! :roll: RWD cossie wil said:
fandango_c said:
TTmonkey said:
WinstonWolf said:
...... Had the driver obeyed that law the accident would never have happened either. In this case it is the compound result of two mistakes occurring at the same time.
This is not really true either. Nearly every driver questioned when involved in a Car/bike junction accident say that yes they did look, and no they didnt see the biker. Its a well known phenomena that scientists and the biking community are trying to understand. Many people 'zone out' when driving. 100% concentration at all times seems beyond the normal persons ability. There are suspected brain conditions that are as yetscientifically unknown and undetectable that cause memory loss, concentration lapses and judjement issues.
It explains how someone can look, but not see. Worth reading and understanding to improve ones observation skills.
Look at the vast majority of posts in here, it's mainly pick a side, then argue it is the other party's fault. This link has been posted about ten times now, and despite being full of absolutly top notch information & ways to improve your observation performance, it has been largely ignored.
people just won't take responsibility for themselves, it's always someone else's fault isnt it! :roll: Drivers behaving badly is what other road users, especially the vulnerable ones, should learn to expect and to take into account. But a lot of them aren't going to do that, and the biker in this case was one of them.
This sort of thing is going to be repeated over and over again, and the best thing that any of us can do is to try not to be any of the people involved.
James McScotty said:
singlecoil said:
I've watched the film several times. Asked to decide whether the driver deliberately placed himself where the bike would hit him, or thought he had time to get across safely, I'm going to choose the latter. There's no other satisfactory explanation. He went because he thought he had time.
That's a classic false dichotomy. How about a third option: he wasn't paying attention?singlecoil said:
No, that doesn't work. I daresay it's possible but it's so extremely unlikely that we don't need to include it. For the simple reason that self-preservation would stop a person turning right across an oncoming lane of traffic without looking.
But self preservation didn't stop someone going through a junction at 100MPH. We have all seen examples of inattention on the road, including pulling across an oncoming lane without looking.Mr Whippy said:
Well put!
If we are to expect 100mph+ overtaking bikers at busy junctions, then we need to expect the same round every blind bend, over every blind crest, out of every junction we plan to turn into.
We simply can't use the roads like that. We have to expect that most road users are using them appropriately.
If others decide to do things very well out of the ordinary, and dangerous irrespective of resultant accidents that may or may not occur, then to offer those people significant protections in law over those people falling victim to their dangerous driving by technicalities of right of way, is just madness.
Except this rider wasn't round a blind bend, he could have been seen, according to Singlecoil he was seen.If we are to expect 100mph+ overtaking bikers at busy junctions, then we need to expect the same round every blind bend, over every blind crest, out of every junction we plan to turn into.
We simply can't use the roads like that. We have to expect that most road users are using them appropriately.
If others decide to do things very well out of the ordinary, and dangerous irrespective of resultant accidents that may or may not occur, then to offer those people significant protections in law over those people falling victim to their dangerous driving by technicalities of right of way, is just madness.
The usual ruling in these situation is that if the approaching (EG)biker was round a blind bend or over a blind crest therefore out of sight when the (EG)car pulled out. Then it's 100% the bikers fault for obviously going far too fast for the visibility.
If the biker was going at a speed that would have allowed him to be seen, but faster than the driver might reasonably expect (as in this case) it's usually 50/50.
Mr Whippy said:
So driving across a busy junction, while just having completed an overtake, at 100mph is behaviour that others should be able to anticipate and drive around safely?
And it itself isn't also really dangerous?
Yeah the car driver did wrong, by accident, probably in a chain of mis-calculations and assumptions based on the road users around them all driving in a normal fashion... not expecting to have to keep an eye out down the road perpetually just in case fast bikers overtake into their desired path.
The biker on the other hand knowingly went dangerously fast in a dangerous location.
One was dangerous by choice, the other by accident in response to a situation they were probably not expecting.
Dave
The Clio driver admitted causing the accident. How many times does this simple fact need to be repeated?And it itself isn't also really dangerous?
Yeah the car driver did wrong, by accident, probably in a chain of mis-calculations and assumptions based on the road users around them all driving in a normal fashion... not expecting to have to keep an eye out down the road perpetually just in case fast bikers overtake into their desired path.
The biker on the other hand knowingly went dangerously fast in a dangerous location.
One was dangerous by choice, the other by accident in response to a situation they were probably not expecting.
Dave
Yes, the bike was going dangerously fast, but that did not in itself cause the collision.
"Austin, 29, of Long Lane, Stoke Holy Cross, pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving and was sentenced at Norwich Magistrates’ Court"
Edited by James McScotty on Friday 12th September 07:10
Edited by James McScotty on Friday 12th September 07:11
^^Indeed.
Interesting to see how the discussion has developed.
I wonder how many of those who are saying that the blame lies squarely with the biker are bikers themselves and have had people in cars pulling out in front of them even when they were riding at much slower speeds and within the limit causing them to have to slam the brakes on to avoid an accident and getting hurt?
Interesting to see how the discussion has developed.
I wonder how many of those who are saying that the blame lies squarely with the biker are bikers themselves and have had people in cars pulling out in front of them even when they were riding at much slower speeds and within the limit causing them to have to slam the brakes on to avoid an accident and getting hurt?
Took me a while to pluck up the courage to watch the video knowing the outcome...
Anyway totally tragic for all Can't imagine what went through the bikers head just before impact.
Nobody expects to wake up one morning knowing it will be their last...
I'm not blaming either party... just look out for each other no matter what we are driving.
Cheers
Anyway totally tragic for all
Can't imagine what went through the bikers head just before impact.Nobody expects to wake up one morning knowing it will be their last...
I'm not blaming either party... just look out for each other no matter what we are driving.
Cheers
Dr Jekyll said:
singlecoil said:
No, that doesn't work. I daresay it's possible but it's so extremely unlikely that we don't need to include it. For the simple reason that self-preservation would stop a person turning right across an oncoming lane of traffic without looking.
But self preservation didn't stop someone going through a junction at 100MPH. We have all seen examples of inattention on the road, including pulling across an oncoming lane without looking.Somebody in an early post made a good comment about the timing of it all.
Had the rider been doing 60 (the speed limit) the guy in the car would have been & gone by the time the rider got to that junction. Had the rider been going faster, he would have been past the driver in the car, hence this accident may never happened! Wrong place wrong time & all that......
Had the rider been doing 60 (the speed limit) the guy in the car would have been & gone by the time the rider got to that junction. Had the rider been going faster, he would have been past the driver in the car, hence this accident may never happened! Wrong place wrong time & all that......
Only just seen this thread, and still a little bit in shock at the video. RIP.
I'm certainly not interested in apportioning blame, but for me the most salient point is:
Things happen on the road.
Whether it's a Clio driver not paying attention, aggressive idiots, animals, children, tyres shredding, debris in the road, oil, blah blah etc etc, things happen. If you choose to drive at 162% of the speed limit, you are choosing to severely restrict your chances of surviving something happening. Especially if you are on a bike.
Everyone needs to 'think bike' more, including a large proportion of bikers.
I'm certainly not interested in apportioning blame, but for me the most salient point is:
Things happen on the road.
Whether it's a Clio driver not paying attention, aggressive idiots, animals, children, tyres shredding, debris in the road, oil, blah blah etc etc, things happen. If you choose to drive at 162% of the speed limit, you are choosing to severely restrict your chances of surviving something happening. Especially if you are on a bike.
Everyone needs to 'think bike' more, including a large proportion of bikers.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff