As I said, look at the video carefully see where the bike is before the car turned onto his side of the road. there is no way he should not have seen the bike. The car driver behind the car that turned saw the bike, so why would the car in front not see it, even the police said there was no reason for the driver not to have seen the bike. It also seems that 97 MPH may not be totally truthful the average speed of the bike was said to be around 97 mph, was that the speedo reading hence less, clearly he was speeding. Just because you say you did not see the bike does it make it the bike riders fault.
The simplest way to put it, can you see a bullet heading for you, even if it is fluorescent orange? OK, it's going faster than a bike, but should you have seen the muzzle flash when you were looking in your mirror or at the junction you were turning in to?
There was nothing the biker could do at that speed. Its not about blame, the courts have sorted that, its about education. Drivers: bikes not only travel at different speeds but also are more difficult to gauge the speed of (I blame daytime lights) so take care Bikers: if theres a junction coming expect someone to want to turn across your path
It may not have been said in the video and I may have read it somewhere but eye witnesses in the vehicles behind the car that struck the bike had been able to see the bike approaching so really the turning car had no excuse for not seeing it.
The driver of the turning car would have been checking mirrors, and where he was going......all split second glances, but just enough to divert the ahead views.......The vehicles behind were probably not making the turn so they would have been looking ahead...... IMO, excessive speed and lack of awareness by the rider caused this incident. FFS......we have all done it and thought "how the hell did we get away with that?".........those that don't, are liars.
Agree with last statement not the rest Al, but not the rest. And tbh I get a bit pissed at the whole holier than tho attitude of some bikers
I'm the last to be accused of being 'holier than thou'........I'm probably madder than most, particularly these days.
Arquebus, please!!!! you check everything before you make your move, then while you make your move you look ahead at the path you are crossing, and at where you are going. Yes we have all done it and we have all been in the wrong. I assume you mean crossing junctions while not looking properly
I agree. The bike was approaching at excessive speed and your right the driver would have been checking mirrors indicating etc but surely this shouldn't divert from the most important check - the check to make sure nothing is coming in the opposite direction!.
OK..............I give in........wait until a bike hits you at close to 100mph when you are in your car..... You are sure to say it wasn't there when I looked and then it hit me.......
I've had a few close calls in the car. And I am very aware. And not for one second do I abdicate my reponsibilty. A glance left, then right them left again with a bike travelling at 100mph plus when you are in a car can be the difference between life and death. And I hope it doesn't happen to me. But if it does, I will go out doing something i like and nice and quick, not vomiting blood in my own piss aged 90 in a ho,e where no one wants me Carry on biking
Remember after this accident a full police investigation took place. Eye witnesses interviewed, forensic tests carried out etc. The driver went to court and on the strength of the evidence and the punishment handed down it was deemed they were to some extent to blame, so to say they just didn't see the bike clearly wasn't good enough to convince a jury that it was just the bikers fault for travelling too fast.
Yes Arquebus you do, well you should do if you look properly remember it is a road with a 60 MPH so any good driver can assume some traffic will be traveling faster than 60, quite frankly I would have expected him to see the bike overtaking the car, as that was after the sign post so not that far from the junction. Also take into account the camera field of view is a wide angle and things look a lot lot further away than they actually are. I myself get frustrated as I feel far too many incidents blame speed, when there are many other factors that should be to blame.
No it shouldn't, a video replaying in my head where someone gets killed? My head is on the road when I'm riding either on public roads or the track. In my case it changes nothing, in 3 months most of the people on various bike forums who have said it will change the way they ride will have forgotten about it and reverted to as before. It makes toss all difference in the real world for car drivers for the same reason, and me and probably 85% of people on this forum have and will continue at some point to do 97 mph in a NSL. A road isn't a race track, agreed, and I don't treat it like one most of the time but can you tell me you NEVER go over the NSL? What speed do you reckon he'd have been able to stop? 40, 50? It's just another unfortunate accident with someone who didn't deserve to die and someone who doesn't deserve to live with it for the rest of their life. That's life and death though. I'll maybe get out tomorrow and do over the NSL, get my knee down (yes on a public road) and enjoy it without seeing him in my head. Will you? OGR
The piece on itn tonight made me want to vomit. According to the report he was travelling too fast to spot the car ahead turning into his path..... Apparently it's a powerful message to slow down on the road but not once does it say it's a powerful message to actually take care when manoeuvring into an oncoming lane of traffic.
I have to sympathise with Arquebus' point here. I am not going to comment on the specific case in this thread but, situationally, it is possible and even likely that a car driver pulling out onto the main road will make his manoeuvre based upon the likelihood of a motorbike closing at 60mph and will quite probably not see a bike closing at 100mph. It doesn't take much imagination to work out how this might work. Hell, I once T-boned a car when I was riding my bike at a closing speed of 30mph because the car driver didn't see me and pulled out in front of me. The driver told the police on the scene that 1. she hadn't seen me and 2. I was speeding. The police told her that if she hadn't seen me, how could she possibly know whether I was speeding? Typical police logic. Still, that is all a completely different kettle of fish.
