You are fixated upon what the driver did or didn't do. What the car driver did or didn't do was outside of the control of the biker and largely irrelevant. The biker could and should have recognised a developing hazard, as others have said, and modified his riding accordingly, then he would probably still be alive today. It is about taking personal responsibility for our own safety and not relying upon others. It is no good being in the right, but dead.
I don't know if the car driver did anything wrong or not, but there is no evidence that he did. You do understand that your vision has limitations that makes it quite possible for you (yes even you) to miss the bike in this situation? So given these limitations of yourself and your fellow roadusers, the road situation where it happened and the basics of speed/reactiontimes/brakinging distance the biker is clearly riding recklessly and DEFINITELY contributed to the accident. The car driver on the other hand we don't KNOW if he did anything wrong and it would be stupid of anyone to assume so. Edit: johnv beat me to it
Once again, I find the contradiction between the views expressed on this thread and those on the "100 year old driver" thread quite amazing. Yes, the driver should have seen the bike coming. The fact remains that, for whatever reason, he says that he didn't. Given that we all know and acknowledge the poor standard of driving in thge UK; given that a large percentage of drivers (some reports say as high as 25%) drive with uncorrected defective vision; and given that so many people are of the opinion that we shouldn't take licences off people who clearly demonstrate that they are unfit to drive, why on earth would we expect car drivers to react correctly in this kind of situation? Yes, the driver should have seen the bike - BUT he had no reason to expect the bike to be doing not far short of 100mph in a 60 limit. If the bike had been doing 60 there is a possibility he may have still hit the car - there is also a chance he may have been able to brake and pass behind it. Approaching the junction at 97mph totally removed any chance of missing the car when it turned... Braking from 60 would have reduced the speed of impact by a fair amount; braking from over 90 clearly had little or no effect. Blame the car driver all you like - it makes no difference who's fault it was when you're in the hospital, or the morgue. Personally, I always expect other road users to do stupid things, and ride (and drive) accordingly. Yes, occasionally I make mistakes - but I don't make the mistake of expecting other people not to...
If I had been approaching that junction with a car waiting to turn across my path my speed would have been well below the 60 mph limit, looking for eye contact with the driver and even then I still would be prepared to emergency stop.
Well, it did the job for me.....I might add that for this, speed depends on the bike that im on....ive got the 2 extremes (an RSV4 factory with a noisy pipe) and the Hypermotard 1100Evo. Riding the RSV4 it just wants to go, literally, the sound of the pipe, the delivery - its all there to get you to twist the throttle open...and it does do that job very well. The hyper on the other hand for me is the opposite, low, very low exhaust tone, upright position, lumpy torque, Short ratio box, everything it says is "low speed" - I notice he was on an FJ1300 or something which has litres of torque and does everything it does effortlessly with literally no noise - which kinda indicates probably more of a high speed driven bike.....im not sure where im going with this but I think what you own and drive will indicate the way that you drive, generally.....my RSV gets used rarely cos inevitably that's what happens, although I will add that as ive gotten older over the years self preservation is taking a hold... And id almost go so far as to say that for all the hyper's lumpy slowness compared to the RSV it is the more fun bike to ride (for me anyway). Not sure if im going to get shouted down or not. It was just an observation, from my standpoint anyway.
Id agree with that totally - if I don't get eye contact then I assume they haven't seen me and may/probably will pull out...
Another point eye contact, I know another biker recently was knocked off (he is fine and well) pulled out of a T junction, as the car was coming, indicating to turn but did not, and he states both clearly made eye contact. making eye contact does not mean they have actually seen you. I have heard that even the car behind hit the car crossing, but no hard evidence, in fact there is very little you can find on the accident, so many questions in my book need answering, but most has been pulled off the internet, bar the basics. The opinions I bet would be so different if it the bike had been doing 60 mph. End result I am afraid would be the same
Just watched it. Rider should have anticipated the car turning in his path and slowed accordingly. The car driver too is at fault for failing to observe oncoming traffic, however I note spatial awareness of some people is less than for others and they may not have judged his speed accordingly. Its a shame. I respect his parents for this wake up call as but for the grace of the universe there goes I on occasions. But I would not have failed to anticipate the driver turning these days. Ive too many bruised memories. Neither would I rely on eye contact. Ive been pulled out on whilst being stared at in the eye. You have to ride as if everyone else is daft and cant see you. Its the only way to survive. Its quite a chilling video. I could see it happening a mile off. Rider just failed to see it himself.
"looked but did not see" is a well recognised phenomenon, and is a contributory factor in many accidents. Basically the brain sees what it expects to see, and discounts anything outside its previous experience. It also tends to go into sensory overload if too many things that it's not expecting happen, and continues to take whatever action it would normally take. (There are reports of people continuing to walk towards the Kings Cross undergound fire, despite it being blatantly obvious - to an outside observer - that this was completely the wrong thing to do ).
Comfy - I can't comment on your particular bike, but I would say this... I have only ever ridden a Hyper once ( thanks Kev, much appreciated ) and it was fairly quiet and unassuming, and a lot of fun. I also found that, when I checked, it was travelling a good deal faster than it appeared to be. I had to do a brain recalibration to relate the apparent lack of speed to the actual velocity. Maybe if I rode one more often I'd get used to it... I found a similar thing with a Buell Firebolt I once had as a courtesy bike...
Just correcting myself - if I was going that fast I don't think I would even get the chance to get eye contact but I really don't think I would be doing that kind of speed coming up to a junction of that design... Agreed MadProff - eye contact doesn't necessarily mean everything is hunky dory...but it is a good indication though...
Strange - id say the other way round it always feels like its going faster than it really is!, therefore for me, I always tend to drive slower on it....plus I like the sound of it a low pull-away speed rather than at high speed... That's the thing with the rsv - I love it, but because for me its the ultimate hooligan bike I keep telling myself to sell it and get something more akin to the hyper....like a streetfigther...but cant bring myself to do it...!
my copper mate has just looked at it he suspects car driver only seen the car he just over took not right but easily done, a biker him self with no bias.
So, let's be clear on this in answer to your comments re the driver's wrongdoing. The driver's plea to the charge of causing death by careless driving and the sentence that follows........................means................. what??? The driver's admission that he should have seen the motorbike means................ what ??? That the driver was found to be careless means............ what ??? I think you are probably right about the judge.
Because he would, quite reasonably, expect the car to be travelling at 60mph. The car, which clearly was travelling within the limit, didn't hit him, so obviously had time to stop. The bike, on the other hand, did hit him...
1976dc - and the fact that the rider would almost certainly have been banned if he had been caught travelling at that speed means... what ? Lets look at this another way - if the thing that crossed the road unexpectedly had not been a car, but had instead been a cat... or a dog... or a fox... or a dear... or a sheep... or a child... or a mother pushing a pram... or a mountain biker... or a deaf old granny... Or a horse... (yes, I have had all of these and more...) Who would then have been to blame? You may be able to apportion some blame to the car driver, but would you also blame the dear? Or the four-year-old? Or the granny? Or the sheep? The root cause of this accident is clearly obvious - this is what happens when you have a blatant disregard for the speed limit, your own safety and the safety of others.
