Sur-ron in the news

How overloaded would a Sur-Ron be with 3 on board? You REALLY think it will be doing any sort of decent speed?

We used to ride places 3 up, one on the back and one on the bars, how is this any different?

You're all presuming blame purely based on what they were riding. Stop and have a think about that. As I said before you lot are no better than the drivers that celebrate cyclists getting killed or run off the road.

You’re all presuming blame purely based on what they were riding. Stop and have a think about that.

Given the main thrust of your point is that you can't stand sweeping generalisations, I object to yours....

“How overloaded would a Sur-Ron be with 3 on board? You REALLY think it will be doing any sort of decent speed?”

Top speed will be pretty much the same unless it’s going uphill.

A sad state of affairs, which could be much less bad if the sale of these was properly regulated.

Given the main thrust of your point is that you can’t stand sweeping generalisations, I object to yours….

You know who I'm talking to, if you're not doing that then obviously...

Stop and have a think about that. As I said before you lot are no better than the drivers that celebrate cyclists getting killed or run off the road

Yeah, I've thought about it, and if you're saying we are [i]all[/i] celebrating something, then maybe you're the one who needs to do a bit of thinking.

@desperatebicycle Really?

Read what I wrote in the post literally before yours.

Ffs, this place...

Condolences to the kids families, it's just a horrible scenario, personally, from the information so far i just put it down as misadventure, it happened at 2000hrs, so getting dark, or dark, on an A road, chances are the Sur-Ron wasn't the road version, 3 up on it, so control would be difficult, not seeing any real nasty comments here, just folk talking from experience of seeing similar stuff, i haven't seen any of the daily mail style 'pulling wheelies in balaclavas whilst swearing at nuns' stuff.

I think Sur-Rons are just too uncontrolled these days, and also scramblers and so on, i do wonder who sells them to kids without much thought for the outcomes that could happen, police round here don't tend to bat an eyelid at them, i can see their point in a way, chase them, accident happens and it's front page news, don't chase them, then the police aren't doing their jobs, it's up to the sellers and companies to be brought to task via the government or police.

There are hoards of bikes like these being used dangerously both on & off road and the potential for death & injury is high.

There are hoards of driver's who are also acting illegally but not quite illegally enough for them to get prosecuted.  Or even for anyone to notice given how pervasive and entitled car culture is.

Personally I'm more worried about all the 'legal' drivers out there than the illegal motorbike riders.

The assumption that because they were riding 3 up on an illegal motorbike so they must have been to blame is wrong without any more information.

The attitude of ‘it’s just kids being kids’ really pisses me off.

I hate to tell you, but it is kids just being kids.

I have done plenty that was at least as stupid if not more so in my life.  I'm sure pretty much everyone has at one point or another.

Part of being a responsible road user is understanding that.  Like I said, it's something that the vast majority don't seem to understand due to just how ingrained car culture is.

The bit you seem to be missing is that by saying ‘kids being kids’ you are implicitly accepting that they were doing something stupid & dangerous. So you are yourself accepting that they were doing something which, at least in part, contributed to the incident. Stereotyping?
Personally I accept that we don’t know all the facts. It could be all the driver’s fault. However, the probability that an underage rider on an illegal overloaded electric motorcycle, might well have been culpable is, in my view, quite high.

The bit you seem to be missing is that by saying ‘kids being kids’ you are implicitly accepting that they were doing something stupid & dangerous.

Don't think anyone is arguing riding 3 up on an illegal motorbike is stupid and dangerous.

However, what you seem to be missing is that it's possible to be doing something stupid and dangerous and if there is an accident it is still entirely someone else's fault.

What I am arguing against is the various posters on this thread (in various different posts and in various different ways) who have come to the conclusion that it must have been the kids' fault.  We can't come to that conclusion yet but car culture means the assumption is that if a middle aged man is driving a sensible car then he couldn't possibly have been at fault.

On a supposed cycling forum, the fact that so many people are happy to accept that conclusion as fact shows just how far car culture has embedded itself in our wider culture.

Could be the kids were entirely at fault.  Maybe ir's even likely that the kids were entirely at fault.  I just think jumping to that conclusion says something.

However, what you seem to be missing is that it’s possible to be doing something stupid and dangerous and if there is an accident it is still entirely someone else’s fault.

No. I disagree. If the stupid & dangerous action contributed to the accident then it isn't entirely someone else's fault.

I'll give you an example: A few years ago there was a video of a motorcyclist (in his 20's I think) who was killed by a car right hooking him as he approached a junction at a ton. His Mum had released it as a warning about the dangers of speeding. The car driver had been in a right filter lane to turn & if IIRC they had about a 7 second view up the road of the biker approaching. They weren't even done for driving without due care.

I remember being in the car after that, counting out 7 seconds & wondering how on earth you could have a clear view before turning and not noticing a motorbike coming towards you. Even at 100mph. For me the car driver is clearly at fault, but the guy who died was also responsible for going at that speed, especially at a junction where a car is waiting to turn. What was he thinking?

You have to accept that there is a level of behaviour which means that even the dopiest of drivers have an excuse to say that they are not to blame. We still have no idea how this accident happened, but I don't find it hard to feel that there  is the potential for completely stupid behaviour to have played a major part in it.

In this case, even if you make an allowance for it being a 14 year old, you also have to look at who provided him with access to the bike.

Yeah, I totally disagree.
It's like when I did a speed awareness course and the instructor said it's always a speeding driver at fault if they hit a pedestrian. The dopes on the course were arguing, but it's obvious to me - if the driver hadn't been breaking the law by speeding, they wouldn't have even been in the place where the accident happened.

And being Scotland I’m not sure the general public will ever get access to the formal inquiry. It seems it’s not published in the same way as England and Wales.

Ive seen FAI reports before now.   Published in the usual way

No. I disagree. If the stupid & dangerous action contributed to the accident then it isn’t entirely someone else’s fault.

So simply by being there they have to bear some responsibility for the accident?  Regardless of how they were riding?

Good to know.  We're just going to pretend the vast majority of drivers don't do something illegal on pretty much every journey.

It’s like when I did a speed awareness course and the instructor said it’s always a speeding driver at fault if they hit a pedestrian. The dopes on the course were arguing, but it’s obvious to me – if the driver hadn’t been breaking the law by speeding, they wouldn’t have even been in the place where the accident happened.

Yep, I agree.  But it's not really what we are talking about.

So simply by being there they have to bear some responsibility for the accident?  Regardless of how they were riding?

Having taken part in a few Accident Investigations, some via road traffic incidents, it is the case, they'll look at contributory factors, aggravating factors, etc to work out how and why the incident occurred, human factors tend to make up a large part of this usually, and unsafe acts is the top of that issue, followed by intentional and unintentional acts and so on.

You've also got to remember investigations aren't just bounded to that specific accident, they're also to see if there's anything contributing that could be managed better to minimise similar incidents occurring in the future.

Having taken part in a few Accident Investigations, some via road traffic incidents, it is the case, they’ll look at contributory factors, aggravating factors, etc to work out how and why the incident occurred, human factors tend to make up a large part of this usually, and unsafe acts is the top of that issue, followed by intentional and unintentional acts and so on.

Yes, and my point is I think we should wait for accident investigators to do so instead of assigning blame based on the fact they were on a Sur-ron and therefore obviously bad-uns.

"It's obvious to me - if the driver hadn’t been breaking the law by speeding, they wouldn’t have even been in the place where the accident happened."

I don't get this. It's a stupid argument. There are plenty of decent reasons not to speed, this isn't one of them. What if the driver had been doing 29.9 instead of 30.1? What if the driver had slowed down to 20mph two miles back to allow someone else to cross? Or to check his whatsapp whilst still driving? If the (e.g.) pedestrian had had one shreddie fewer in the morning? Or paused to check his messages before he crossed? Or failed (or passed) his exams 15 years previously which led to them living in different cities?

"Going too fast to stop" - fair enough. "Going at a speed which made severe consequences inevitable, rather than unlikely" -fair enough. "different speed/different place" = stupid argument, you may as well say if he'd been going 10mph faster for the last 5 miles, the accident wouldn't have happened.

We can’t come to that conclusion yet but car culture means the assumption is that if a middle aged man is driving a sensible car then he couldn’t possibly have been at fault.

I think anyone who has every cycled on the road would know that this isn't true. But on the other hand, I use the roads as a driver, motorcyclist, cyclist and pedestrian and the vast majority of other road users are reasonably sensible, but apart from one I saw being ridden on the road, with a helmet and a numberplate, every single Sur-Ron I've ever seen has been ridden by someone wearing a balaclava and riding dangerously somewhere they shouldn't be. So on the balance of probabilities...

I made a complaint to the BBC about the use of the term e-bike. They have responded…

Dear bensales

Thank you for getting in touch with us about the BBC News website and referring to an ‘e-bike’ in our recent coverage of a fatal incident involving two teenagers in Moray.

The reference in question reflected the terminology used by the authorities in relation to this incident; - https://www.scotland.police.uk/what-s-happening/news/2024/march/appeal-following-fatal-crash-on-the-a941-lossiemouth-to-elgin-road/ - however, having raised your complaint with senior news editors, they agree that an electric motorbike is a more accurate description of the vehicle, and the story has been updated to reflect this. A link to the explainer on what the law is around e-bikes has also been included: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65855198

We appreciate your feedback and thank you again for taking the time to contact us.

So on the balance of probabilities…

On the balance of probabilities, no matter what the rider is wearing, a single Sur-ron crashing into four separate cars seems highly unlikely to me.

It's enough to give me pause, at least.  Not enough for many others, it seems.

On the balance of probabilities, no matter what the rider is wearing, a single Sur-ron crashing into four separate cars seems highly unlikely to me.

Like @onewheelgood, the only way Surrons are ridden where I live is by balaclava wearing scrotes, on the back wheel, weaving in and out of traffic, and usually on the wrong side of the road deliberately playing chicken. As the A941 Lossiemouth to Elgin road is a pretty major road, I can very easily see it that a bike being ridden in that manner, three up, loses control and pinballs off multiple other vehicles heading in both directions.

I don’t relish the death of the people involved, but I can’t find any sympathy for them either based on experience. If that makes me a bad person, so be it.

 If that makes me a bad person, so be it.

OK.

When are we going to wake up? “Sports Utility Vehicles” clearly have no place on the roads.

@bensales, I had the same reply from the BBC. Came here to post it but you beat me to it.

Shit for all concerned.
Reading some of these comments did make me wonder if any Sur-rons have ever been Road registered?
E-motorbikes are certainly the weapon of choice to rag about round here.
I was under the impression no crash helmet means the police don’t give chase.

As for fault and doing illegal things, I knew a biker who never actually had a license. Was knocked off and badly injured by a car driver, the car driver was found to be at fault and the biker received compensation for injuries caused.

Reading some of these comments did make me wonder if any Sur-rons have ever been Road registered?

More than I’d have thought, but very few.

[img] [/img]

Don’t the cops have some? They would obviously be registered .

I wonder how mush a legal suron is to insure? They must be nicked within minutes of purchase.

Got to confess, they do look fun...in the right environment. I'd quite like a go.

One of the lads that died was called Marcus. How do I put this.......there are not too many "Marcus"s in Elgin. It's not a Marcus type of place. The Sur-ron 'roadman' stereotypes might not run to this situation. Locally they are reporting film of the lads showing off on the bike just before the accident doing the rounds on social media among the local kids. Friends (and ghouls) going to the scene are being right dicks parking all over the junction and blocking the road - almost like no one has learnt anything....

Natural selection

One of the lads that died was called Marcus. How do I put this…….there are not too many “Marcus”s in Elgin. It’s not a Marcus type of place. The Sur-ron ‘roadman’ stereotypes might not run to this situation.

Not least because the "Sur-ron ‘roadman’ " seems to be more of an English problem than up here. Particularly up there.

It's the kind of place I can see someone getting one for their kid to get about on because it beats driving them everywhere since there's no meaningful public transport to use your free bus pass on. Kids very quickly get into cars because there is **** all else to do and no other way of getting anywhere. I knew folk at school from Forres, just along the road, and there was **** all going for it then.

"I don’t relish the death of the people involved, but I can’t find any sympathy for them either based on experience. If that makes me a bad person, so be it."

"One of the lads that died was called XXX. How do I put this…….there are not too many “XXX”s in Elgin. It’s not a XXX type of place. The Sur-ron ‘roadman’ stereotypes might not run to this situation."

"Natural selection"

You lot ****ing suck. These are real kids we are talking about, and your snotty, prejudiced comments are ignorant and hurtful. And what's more they're unbelievably predictable, pub bore toss. Is there anything more pathetic than people trying to be provocative by saying something shocking about dead children from behind the mask of anonymity?

Aye, Sur-ron's make sense in a built up urban connibation. Quick to get about on if you need to avoid the law, will fit down alleys and snickets and all with a minimal noise signature. Not great in a more rural area i'd argue.

Daft ****s or roadmen, I ain't celebrating their death. It's not like they're ****ing ISIS.

Leave bottom brackets out of this

Leave bottom brackets out of this

Nope, **** ISIS.