ADUK Archive

Such a tragic waste of life.

http://www.norfolk.police.uk/newsandeve ... nched.aspx

superplum wrote:Such a tragic waste of life.

http://www.norfolk.police.uk/newsandeve ... nched.aspx

Ok, I'll go first. This reminds me of my most serious RTC on a motorcycle and it was for the same reasons here, a motorcyclist and a car driver who both were at fault in not following what are the basic principles we here consider.
Luckily I and my then girlfriend on the pillion survived, she unscathed and me with just a broken arm and a couple of cracked teeth.
Reinforces my opinion that the standards of the AD organisations should be the basic for all road users.

Very sad.

Yes, the biker was probably going faster than ideal for a busy junction, but it wasn't so fast that the car driver wouldn't of had time to see him coming. Coupled to that, a competent driver should be expecting bikes to be travelling quickly, as that's why many people choose to ride them.

130 hours community service and an 18 month driving ban for ending someone's life through pure carelessness is a sad indictment on our justice system.

I don't think speed had anything to do with the actions of the car driver. He didn't misjudge the speed, he failed to see the bike at all. For whatever reason.

However had the bike been travelling at 60 instead of 100 it may well have been survivable. It does underline the benefit of the right kind of training properly applied. He could have ridden the same speed for most of the distance but reduced speed for the junction and lived to tell the tale.

+1 to the above

It's a terrible tragedy...

Speed doesn't kill? Surely this case unexpected speed was a factor. Maybe the car driver didn't see the bike and he should have... Or didn't realise the bike wasn't going at 100 mph and thought he had longer?

At 60 mph the rider would have taken rather longer (+66%) to close the gap.... I presume he saw the car at the junction but didn't think it would misjudge his 100 mph.

You can't make mistakes like this twice. I guess there's 2 grieving families.

StressedDave wrote:Had the bike been travelling at 60mph, he would have been nowhere near the car driver. It's the usual problem of looking at speed rather than the specific distance at a given time.

He wouldn't have been anywhere near him at 200mph either.

Apparently the driver didn't see him at all, or the car behind him. In addition, the driver behind the car that hit him said they saw the bike.

We can all play 'what ifs' until the cows come home but ultimately I can see why they say speed wasn't a factor.

trashbat wrote:We can all play 'what ifs' until the cows come home but ultimately I can see why they say speed wasn't a factor.

And it also shows why reducing speed limits won't have any effect on this sort of collision. Not that I'd expect a politician to understand that argument

jameslb101 wrote:... a competent driver should be expecting bikes to be travelling quickly, as that's why many people choose to ride them.

Equally a competent rider should be expecting cars to pull out in front of them at junctions. That's what people do. I've noticed it driving a car.

trashbat wrote:

StressedDave wrote:Had the bike been travelling at 60mph, he would have been nowhere near the car driver. It's the usual problem of looking at speed rather than the specific distance at a given time.

He wouldn't have been anywhere near him at 200mph either.

Apparently the driver didn't see him at all, or the car behind him. In addition, the driver behind the car that hit him said they saw the bike.

We can all play 'what ifs' until the cows come home but ultimately I can see why they say speed wasn't a factor.

I think what Dave's saying is that the biker's speed could have been a factor in why the car driver didn't see him.

He was travelling in a straight line presenting a consistent profile. It looks like he had lights on. Other people saw him and the driver said he didn't. Now even without that, they might have misjudged his speed but I think it still would have been a marginal near miss if not a collision.

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.

Just saw the video whilst on Facebook.

It is indeed very hard-hitting.

I'd say that if the biker was doing 70ish, he would've had an exceedingly close near miss, but at 97, as soon as that car pulled into his path, the accident was a foregone conclusion.

trashbat wrote:...

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.

How long before Martin locks this thread?

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?

Drivers don't see bikes for a combination of reasons:

* Cognitive inconspicuity: Car drivers' brains search for car-sized vehicles and larger. Your brain sees what it's prepped to see. Consequently, a car driver can look straight at a bike and the driver's brain won't register the bike. (Whether the rider's wearing hi-viz is irrelevant, incidentally.)

* Actual inconspicuity: Bikes have a broken up shape, which makes them inherently harder to see. Making matters worse, the rider could further break up their shape by wearing a different coloured vest, e.g. a hi-viz vest with a nice IAM logo (Google 'dazzle camoflague'). Alternatively, the rider could wear a helmet and clothing with one solid colour, preferably one matching the bike's colour, which would help make rider and bike look like one solid object (i.e. easier to see).

* 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, as well a lateral positioning (e.g. something called a Z-line).

Now, remind me again why the IAM and RoSPA encourage riders to wear hi-viz?

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

trashbat wrote: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?

It is naïve to expect people not to "get it wrong". We are expected to get it wrong sometimes. That is why we have insurance.

Had the rider survived and the driver died the rider would have, most likely, been charged with the same offence. They probably both caused the fatality however you perceive it.