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.
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.
jameslb101 wrote:... a competent driver should be expecting bikes to be travelling quickly, as that's why many people choose to ride them.
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.
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.
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?
Return to General Car Chat Forum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests