Family allow use of fatal crash video for safety campaign.

[Sump]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5VMYwVWUas#t=11

So in this scenario, the white Audi that was doing 70mph has been sentenced for 6 years I believe..

Sadly that lady in the Astra died.

[vonhosen]

Sump said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5VMYwVWUas#t=11

So in this scenario, the white Audi that was doing 70mph has been sentenced for 6 years I believe..

Sadly that lady in the Astra died.

Effectively deliberate illegal high risk act V an (admittedly illegal) error of judgement.
Death by dangerous V death by careless.
They aren't the same thing & aren't going to get similar sentences.

[Mr Whippy]

Dr Jekyll said:

Mr Whippy said:

James McScotty said:

25NAD90TUL said:

So, the bike is going at approximately double the limit, 'too' fast iyo.

And the only piece of dangerous driving was the cars'.

OK.

You are setting up a straw man argument.

The bike was going at approx 1.5 x the limit. But the car driver pulled across him when he was 1.0 second away! Had the bike been driving at 60mph, the legal limit, he would still have been under 2 seconds away. So, in my opinion, and in the opinion of the car driver himself, and the judge, the car driver caused the collision. And so my sympathies are much more on the side of the biker, even though he was not riding at a safe speed for that piece of road.

I'm a car driver, not a biker, btw.

Edited by James McScotty on Monday 15th September 18:47

By that logic, the speed limit should be 100mph, and going 100mph over road junctions is safe.

It's bad observation on those that succumb to these high speed drivers that are the danger?

Dave

Why do so many people fail to accept that BOTH parties were to blame. Suggesting that the driver should have looked more carefully is NOT the same as saying the biker was entitled to go through a junction at 100MPH.

There are many levels of blame that is probably why.

Legal, technical, spirit of the rules, loss of life... yadda yadda.


Who is most to blame for the actual accident occurring?

Who is the most to blame from a legal standpoint?


Interestingly in all the documentation on road driving it doesn't say to sit perpetually at certain junctions checking left and right to watch out for road users who may be driving so quickly that by the time you've checked one way, then the other, the opposing direction may no longer be clear.

I'm not sure what that says about inappropriate speeds at junctions, but I assume they simply are not expected to be present?

[Bbunter]

I feel sorry for his friends and family, I feel sorry for the car driver, I have zero sympathy for someone riding at that speed on a public road, which isn't part of a race meeting. If the video makes even one rider think about the consequences of riding that irresponsibly, then it's got to be worth it.

[Mr GrimNasty]

vonhosen said:

Sump said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5VMYwVWUas#t=11

So in this scenario, the white Audi that was doing 70mph has been sentenced for 6 years I believe..

Sadly that lady in the Astra died.

Effectively deliberate illegal high risk act V an (admittedly illegal) error of judgement.
Death by dangerous V death by careless.
They aren't the same thing & aren't going to get similar sentences.

It's exactly the same, one driver speeding recklessly with the inevitable outcome. It could not be more the same. Except that the toss of the coin flipped the fatality to the offending driver.

[MC Bodge]

Bbunter said:

I have zero sympathy for someone riding at that speed on a public road, which isn't part of a race meeting

This appears to be one of those absolute viewpoints, with no context.

"May he who is without sin cast the first stone"

[Mr Whippy]

Mr GrimNasty said:

vonhosen said:

Sump said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5VMYwVWUas#t=11

So in this scenario, the white Audi that was doing 70mph has been sentenced for 6 years I believe..

Sadly that lady in the Astra died.

Effectively deliberate illegal high risk act V an (admittedly illegal) error of judgement.
Death by dangerous V death by careless.
They aren't the same thing & aren't going to get similar sentences.

It's exactly the same, one driver speeding recklessly with the inevitable outcome. It could not be more the same. Except that the toss of the coin flipped the fatality to the offending driver.

Looks the same to me too.

The driver looking to cross the road *could* have seen that car coming and made the right choice, but didn't because you don't expect a driver to be coming down there at very high speed.

In both cases the drivers looking to cross the main carriageway were caught out by drivers driving at excessive speeds for the conditions, and thus the ability to make good decisions was impaired, and they have pulled into the path of these vehicles.

Dave

[vonhosen]

Mr GrimNasty said:

vonhosen said:

Sump said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5VMYwVWUas#t=11

So in this scenario, the white Audi that was doing 70mph has been sentenced for 6 years I believe..

Sadly that lady in the Astra died.

Effectively deliberate illegal high risk act V an (admittedly illegal) error of judgement.
Death by dangerous V death by careless.
They aren't the same thing & aren't going to get similar sentences.

It's exactly the same, one driver speeding recklessly with the inevitable outcome. It could not be more the same. Except that the toss of the coin flipped the fatality to the offending driver.

The offences & actions of 'those charged' in each of the above cases are not the same.
Irrespective of the other party involved's actions, you are responsible for your actions.

1st case, offences by both parties (one who died can't be charged with his offence so there's no point talking about any sentence as he can't get one).
2nd case only an offence apparent by the Audi driver.

The offences committed by the Fiesta driver in case 1 & the Audi driver in case 2 are not similarly cogent.
Even the offences/actions by the fatally injured in case 1 & the Audi driver in case 2 aren't, for a start they are very different roads, with different speed limits & different sight lines.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 17th September 17:00

[Dr Jekyll]

Mr Whippy said:

Looks the same to me too.

The driver looking to cross the road *could* have seen that car coming and made the right choice, but didn't because you don't expect a driver to be coming down there at very high speed.

In both cases the drivers looking to cross the main carriageway were caught out by drivers driving at excessive speeds for the conditions, and thus the ability to make good decisions was impaired, and they have pulled into the path of these vehicles.

Dave

I think there is a difference between a case where the approaching vehicle was going so fast in relation to visibility that it wasn't in sight when the driver pulling out checked (Audi case) and one where it is visible but going faster than the driver pulling out would expect (bike case). In the first instance the driver pulling out is in the clear, in the second case they share some blame for making an unjustified (if understandable) assumption.

[James McScotty]

Mr Whippy said:

James McScotty said:

25NAD90TUL said:

So, the bike is going at approximately double the limit, 'too' fast iyo.

And the only piece of dangerous driving was the cars'.

OK.

You are setting up a straw man argument.

The bike was going at approx 1.5 x the limit. But the car driver pulled across him when he was 1.0 second away! Had the bike been driving at 60mph, the legal limit, he would still have been under 2 seconds away. So, in my opinion, and in the opinion of the car driver himself, and the judge, the car driver caused the collision. And so my sympathies are much more on the side of the biker, even though he was not riding at a safe speed for that piece of road.

I'm a car driver, not a biker, btw.

Edited by James McScotty on Monday 15th September 18:47

By that logic, the speed limit should be 100mph, and going 100mph over road junctions is safe.

It's bad observation on those that succumb to these high speed drivers that are the danger?

Dave

I don't really follow the "logic" of your post. I've repeatedly posted that the bike was driving at an excessive speed for that road.

Anyway, both the Clio driver and the court agree that the Clio caused the collision, so nuff said.

[singlecoil]

James McScotty said:

I don't really follow the "logic" of your post. I've repeatedly posted that the bike was driving at an excessive speed for that road.

Anyway, both the Clio driver and the court agree that the Clio caused the collision, so nuff said.

'Nuff' for you, apparently. Others may take a different view. I think we can pretty much discount what the driver said, he could hardly have pleaded guilty otherwise, and would have risked a more severe sentence if he hadn't.

It's obvious to those that don't always take what judges say as gospel truth that they BOTH caused the accident.

[Mave]

James McScotty said:

Anyway, both the Clio driver and the court agree that the Clio caused the collision, so nuff said.

Yep, based on the info presented. But personally I don't believe that the Clio driver could / should have seen the motorcyclist 7 seconds before the crash, so I think the court conclusion was skewed by an inaccurate statement.

[MRobbins1987]

Doesn't make pleasant viewing, I went past a fatal bike accident the other day and its put me off for life, it really isn't worth it... A slight loss in concentration is all it takes and lives are ruined forever...

[shoestring7]

MRobbins1987 said:

Doesn't make pleasant viewing, I went past a fatal bike accident the other day and its put me off for life, it really isn't worth it... A slight loss in concentration is all it takes and lives are ruined forever...

Driven past any nasty car crashes recently? Still driving?

SS7

[Mr GrimNasty]

James McScotty said:

I don't really follow the "logic" of your post. I've repeatedly posted that the bike was driving at an excessive speed for that road.

Anyway, both the Clio driver and the court agree that the Clio caused the collision, so nuff said.

The survivor was prosecuted, probably unfairly, the system doesn't always get it right. They are under pressure in serious accidents to get a head on a stick. The car driver was probably naive and in shock and taken advantage of, to improve the stats.

What is certain is that the motorcyclist would have been prosecuted had he lived and by any possible application of cold logic he was responsible for his own death.

[J4CKO]

shoestring7 said:

MRobbins1987 said:

Doesn't make pleasant viewing, I went past a fatal bike accident the other day and its put me off for life, it really isn't worth it... A slight loss in concentration is all it takes and lives are ruined forever...

Driven past any nasty car crashes recently? Still driving?

SS7

People don't get killed quite as regularly in cars as those on bikes, I think the odds for a qualified and experienced driver, in a decent sized, modern, well protected car are massively better than for anyone on a bike. Just look at the death and injury stats, how many cars do you see versus how many motorbikes.

Bikes are fantastic and have their place but there is a massive trade of in terms of safety to enjoy that thrill.

So, it does stand that one lapse of concentration and you are dead or have life changing injuries versus being shaken up and having your insurance premium go up.

Of course, people do die in cars, would like to see what kind of cars are involved in fatalities, I would expect most are smaller and older ones nowadays, the massive improvements in car safety that have come about in the last twenty or so years have passed motorcycles by, just by default, the whole point is you sit on it, unattached to it, unprotected so it will never improve, ok, the odd bit of ABS, linked braking and messing about with airbag suits but you ride it with your legs in the breeze surrounded by fast moving big metal boxes.

I suspect nowadays, if you choose a big car like a Volvo XC90, it is actually pretty difficult to kill yourself short of a head on with a lorry or driving off Beachy Head.

[Driller]

Mr Whippy said:

Driller said:

^^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?

How many times have I had to make emergency manoeuvres to avoid other road users over the years?

It happens to everyone all the time.

Bikers are more exposed, and thus usually they take extra precautions. In this case the rider didn't.

Bikers are less visible which of course doesn't mean invisible.

Those who are hard of thinking and with a lizards pulse rate seem to have difficulty seeing them.

[boobles]

Just wondering what the views towards the biker would had been had he been riding whilst under the influence of alcohol? It just seems that alot of people (rightly or wrongly) are defending his attitude towards other road users. I am not suggesting anything other than asking the question above because it seems that doing the double the speed limit (by some) is acceptable so I wanted to know if their opinions would change had he been tipsy?

[singlecoil]

Driller said:

Bikers are less visible which of course doesn't mean invisible.

Those who are hard of thinking and with a lizards pulse rate seem to have difficulty seeing them.

Apparently sometimes even quite clever people don't see motor cyclists. It's one of the reasons I wouldn't consider riding one on a public road.