Well, its 100mph, innit :Banghead: Funny how most I have ridden with, incl the multi lot, occasionally touch similar speeds. Maybe I'm just honest, I know thats togh for internet warriors to comprehend but there it is :Cigar: Unless I'm lying officer, which I could be, its the internet, I rarely do 60 never mind more, keep my speed for the track ompus:
Have you ever pulled out and thought "that was a bit close" ? If the answer is yes, which would be the case for most people, then imagine what might have happened if that bike / car coming at you was travelling just a little bit faster than you thought it was. Then imagine the effect a lengthy ban might have on your life and the lives of your family. Now tell me you wouldn't quote economic hardship, assuming that it was true.
There are places where 100mph is perfectly reasonable, then there are junctions like the one in question.
I find it amusing though Aquebus you cannot answer the ?s in fact when that ? has been asked I do not think one person has answered, because it proves that the blame has to be transferred Cant say I have ever driven at 210MPH, tbh I would not want to. Have I driven at 100MPH tbh is frankly in my view just shows how Naive you really are.
So yet again a set of imaginary scenarios are proposed along with a set of hypothetical questions. I understand; you need to be reassured twice. No problem. See my previous post for your answer.
I drove a specialist road traffic accident unit ( cutting gear air bags etc ) for quite a few years and apart from tractors overturning, accidents involving machinery etc the majority of road accidents involved speed. I counted up for a training course that I had attended between seven and eight hundred accidents so I think I can speak from experience (but only my opinion ),anyhows in the severe winter a few years ago we had one month in northern Ireland with out a road fatality due to everyone driving slow in the ice and snow. I watched the video and could not believed the rider never slowed down covered his brake and anticipated that they are out to get us,also im not surprised the car driver pulled across his path judging by the standard of driving im witnessing everyday . now I don't know about all on here but I have had cause to think after making a manoeuvre did I really look properly. well I for one take from the video a sense of sadness for the families involved,i also will remember this when im approaching junctions. I know we cant cover all bases but at least stack the odds in our favour as best we can..... rip
I too find it amusing when you expect me to answer gibberish......Maybe if you could pose your comments in such a way they could be understood....??
I was not referring to my last post as you well know If the Bike rider had been doing 60 MPH (as at 60MPH the out come would still have been the same) would you still blame the Bike rider, and still think it is not the car drivers fault for not looking? and pulling across. Do you not think that 7 secs is long enough to see something coming towards you?
Sorry for hijacking the question :It's quite good actually :Happy: but I'm only perfect some of the time, sometimes I'm dam awful
To me its a 60/40. Rider was daft for not anticipating AND for going too fast by a dodgy looking turning. The car driver daft for not looking properly. But the rider takes most of the blame. Hence 60/40.
I still cannot get around it, that people think that anything with a right of way what ever speed they are doing is in the wrong for a car pulling across them because they did not look (even having 7 seconds to look). The Bikes speed is irrelevant to the cause of the accident, it is only the bikes speed that decides how terminal his outcome would be. The Bike has no blame for the accident only blame that he did not survive that was his only mistake a very costly one.
If you cannot see any blame attached to the rider for traveling 40mph faster than may be anticipated by other road users then you are a donut. Just because he is dead does not preclude him from responsibility. Had he been going 60mph there would have been no accident as he would have arrived after the car had pulled across him. Judging head on speed is hard enough for some people at normal velocities, at 100mph its even more difficult. The rider was riding without due care and attention at the very least.
Ahh so that is where the difference is, I think if he had been doing 60MPH he would have still hit the car. Regarding judging speed you cannot judge speed it if you did not see the car or bike coming towards you.
How? If he'd been doing 60 all along that road he would have arrived at that point later on and not when he did.
I am afraid that is rather 2 way, if he had been doing 120 MPH all away he would have passed the junction. I really wish we could find out if the car behind also ran into the car
90 metres at 100mph is enough distance to see a sign and slow down in an emergency (braking distance is also approx 90 metres)......At 60mph even easier. The fact that the biker should have also seen the car about to do a maneouvre is telling. It beggars belief that you still think it was OK for him to be travelling at 100mph in a 60mph limit.........Frankly, you are simply dangerous and put others at risk if you ride with that attitude.
If he'd stayed at home he'd still be alive. The point is irellevant anyway. However the fact remains that he was speeding and thus riding without due care at the very least and thus has to accept responsibility. I do not absolve the car driver for pulling across his path. He is a jackass. But to say the rider has no blame whatsoever is daft.
^ I think you have that about right. Mad Proff - can't you see that many of us will jump on you for posting the above? I would have a think and try again..
