Hard Hitting Video Launched

[GJD]

...

It's not like we're placed on the landscape along with an opposing vehicle and both set loose at carefully chosen times such that there's a good chance we'll meet. 100mph might have been great for missing an accident whose parameters meant he was most likely to get hit when travelling at 60mph. So would setting off earlier.

It isn't as simple as that. People look as far as and as much as they think they need to look.

I think that's the point. If 60 means the driver sees the biker because the biker is not beyond where the driver is looking, the difference between 100 and 60 isn't the difference between a collision and a marginal near miss, it's the difference between a collision and the car not pulling in front of the biker at all.

[Zebedee]

The reason drivers don't see motorcyles isn't that simple. It's multi-factorial. See my earlier post about 'cognitive inconspicuity'. Speed alone doesn't explain it.

Horse, where are you? I can't see you

[Silk]

Indeed they do. And when they get it wrong, they kill people. So don't get it wrong.

What's the answer to that? The lowest common denominator?

<Silk>Ban all two wheeled transport from roads</Silk>

Let's be honest here, you have to be a bit mad to ride a motorcycle. Even madder to ride a bicycle on the road. It's probably a bit much to expect two-wheelers to have a what most people would consider to be a normal sense of survival.

We just have to accept that those on two wheels are going to be more reckless than those on four and make allowances. Of course, there are exceptions, but exceptions nonetheless.

[jonquirk]

I've watched the video several times and I think that Dave might still be alive if he had steered to the right rather than the left. His reaction on seeing the car moving into his path was to brake and move left. If the Clio driver had seen Dave and stopped that might have worked but as it appears that he was unaware of the motorbike all Dave achieved was to make the collision inevitable.

Had Dave steered to the right he might have avoided the Clio completely although he would then be on the wrong side of the road with other cars coming towards him; he might have run off the road to the right or he might have struck the Clio obliquely. Any of these outcomes would be more surviveable than the collision that did occur.

[Albie]

I have also watched this several times and it leaves me cold! I think he steered to the left as he thought the car would suddenly see him and stop allowing him to go left! My neighbours are enthusiastic bikers and the idea of passing my test is something i have toyed with many times but every time i hear of these incidents it puts me off.

Personally i think even if he was obeying the speed limit he would have been a fatality due to the car driver!

[Horse]

Over to Horse, who's a professional in this particular field ...

And who is deliberately not getting involved in any of these threads (I've seen at least 6, on 5 different boards now . . . )

Let's be honest here, you have to be a bit mad to ride a motorcycle.

You've been in the same room as me a few times, did my madness permeate the atmosphere that badly?

[Gareth]

* Drivers' brains are poor at judging the speed of an approaching bike, because the shape of a motorbike makes this inherently difficult. The rider can help mitigate this risk by reducing speed on the approach to junctions, ...

I think it's that people are poor at estimating the speed of a small distant vehicle, especially when it doesn't appear to grow in size at the rate expected of a larger vehicle.

Someone once mentioned to me that it is a good idea to approach junctions where a vehicle is waiting to emerge at the sort of speed expected by the driver/rider of the waiting vehicle. That means about 50-55 mph in an NSL, for example.

[Zebedee]

Hi Gareth,

Research has found that drivers who don't ride don't see motorcyles very well. Hence all the accidents where the driver pulls out of a junction into the path of a bike. In contrast, car drivers who also ride rarely do so.

This may be for two reasons. Firstly, drivers who also ride may unconsciously look for bikes. This solves the problem of 'cognitive inconspicuity'. Secondly, research has found that bikers are more hazard aware than people who only drive a car. (If Horse decides to join in, he can probably cite the relevant research papers.)

... estimating the speed of a small distant vehicle, especially when it doesn't appear to grow in size at the rate expected of a larger vehicle.

Exactly right about the expected rate: it's called the 'looming effect'. How did you know? Are you an honorary biker?

I agree with your advice about approach speed to junctions. In addition, because of the 'looming effect' for motorcycles, I'll slow a few MPH more on the bike than in the car, when approaching a junction.

[jont]

[
I think it's that people are poor at estimating the speed of a small distant vehicle, especially when it doesn't appear to grow in size at the rate expected of a larger vehicle.

When I had the Elise, it seemed to suffer disproportionately from this (people thinking it's further away/going slower than it actually is and pulling out/across in front of you).

[Silk]

Research has found that drivers who don't ride don't see motorcyles very well. Hence all the accidents where the driver pulls out of a junction into the path of a bike. In contrast, car drivers who also ride rarely do so.

To be honest, I get a bit fed up with people telling me that, as a car driver, I have to have experience of other vehicles in order to be a better car driver, and I'm certainly not going to take any lessons from the kind of biker who thinks it's ok to approach a busy junction on an A road at speeds approaching 100mph!

Instead of blaming car drivers, it's about time the two-wheeling "community" took some responsibility. As far as I can tell from the video, the biker was 100% at fault as he could have 100% avoided the situation arising in the first place.

[exportmanuk]

As far as I can tell from the video, the biker was 100% at fault as he could have 100% avoided the situation arising in the first place.

So the car drive who admitted they had not even seen the car the biker had just overtaken was
paying attention to the road? Would you as an observer have been happy to sit in the passenger seat with such a driver

The biker was wrong riding too fast and not paying attention to the road and signage. If you look on most of the bike related forums you will see most riders will agree, but equally if the driver had been taking proper observations they too should have been able to see the developing situation and given way as they should have done.

[TheInsanity1234]

To simplify this.

Probably 75% of the drivers on our roads are crap.

The rest of us should just accept that, and deal with it by driving/riding in such a way that if other people make a mistake, we will be, more often than not, able to accommodate it.
I say "more often than not" rather than "always" because due to the complete unpredictability of humans, there will be mistakes that we just cannot accommodate.

There, problem solved. Let the brain-dead Neanderthals smash up their cars and that. As long we avoid them and don't cause any accidents ourselves, then we have nothing to be guilty of.

And no, please don't tell me that I should sympathise with the families of dead people that occur as a result of crap drivers meeting crap drivers, because my view is "people make mistakes, sometimes, these mistakes can cause people to die". That is a fact of life, and until all the humans have been completely wiped out, then people will always die as a result of other people's actions, be it intentional or not.

[MGF]

I find that it helps by putting myself in the 75% group. Most crap driving is probably the result of genuine mistakes rather than deliberate acts of stupidity.

[fungus]

The biker was wrong riding too fast and not paying attention to the road and signage. If you look on most of the bike related forums you will see most riders will agree, but equally if the driver had been taking proper observations they too should have been able to see the developing situation and given way as they should have done.

I'm in agreement here. The road was straight on approach to the junction, and the car driver should have seen the bike coming. Misjudging its' speed I would imagine is quite probable if it's travelling at near on the ton. On the other hand, the biker could see the junction ahead along with oncoming cars and one entering the right turn box and should have been shedding s--t loads of speed.

Having said this, how many drivers approach a totaly blind junction on a twisty B road not giving any thought as to whether they could stop if a road user emerged from the junction?

[Kimosabe]

The driver said that they didn't see either the bike or the car following. Doesn't anybody find that rather telling? Following a major trauma, someone's recall of events leading upto the incident can often be missing altogether. They might even generate a false memory. It's a very tricky area to deal with and I hope that whoever was responsible for asking the questions was fully availed of this vital information, as it seems to be the sole basis for the outcome.

100mph is 150ft per second. So say the driver looked up the road some two or two and a half seconds before impact, that's around 300-400 feet (130yds or 120m) which they would have to have correctly judged an approach speed of a bike (I think I saw a green headlamp indicator on the bikes dash) which had just passed a car (narrowly) which may also have had their headlights on (converging at speed in a straight line, whilst blending with the vehicle behind?), that was traveling at or around the correct speed for the road, decided to make their move or not and had noticed that the bike was moving faster than the car. I dunno, seems like a lot to take in, to me.

All in all it's a damn shame that this happened but I wonder about the driver really not seeing either the car or bike.