Forum menu
You are entitled to your opinion but I hope you don't drive anywhere near me.
I don't drive over 75mph generally...
I do ride a motorbike over that though. Like I said, for the road, the conditions, the traffic, I thought his speed was reasonable.
Ask yourself this, if the bike is a 1300cc Japanese bike with 150+BHP and a top speed of close to 180mph, do you think the rider really bought it to do 70mph everywhere ? Simple answer, bikers buy big fast bikes to do big fast speeds. That speed was IMO well within 'cruising' speed for an experienced biker on a big Japanese sports tourer.
It's also worth noting that many studies have shown the average motorist simply does not look far enough ahead, both in "distance" and as a result in "time". You'll see lots of people arriving at an empty roundabout, braking to a halt and THEN looking to see if they can continue, generally managing to pull out just as someone comes round it, causing them to have to brake! For these people, for most of the time, they just bumble around, causing other motorists to get annoyed, but generally nothing more. Unfortunately, add in another factor, the "holes in the swiss cheese" align, and that lack of attention results in a death.
This is because our driver training is so poor, and because we have forgotten that driving should be a privilege and not a right!
For me that is a long time not to see something straight ahead of you
According to the article, linked on the previous page, the car driver admitted to not seeing the car behind the rider either.
It seems that the rider was complacent that the car driver was going to give way, or did not see him either.
I wonder if he was influenced by going to a race meet that day and reminiscing about his other life in Antarctica, shame we will never know.
That was a hard watch.
Guessing he was missed in a saccade or maybe the driver looked and saw only the car in the distance before the biker had overtaken him and thought he had plenty of time, neglecting to look again before he actually started to move when the biker was in view.
I've started lifting off the gas in my car around this type of junction because so many people misjudge your speed or simply don't see you.
It seems that the rider was complacent that the car driver was going to give way, or did not see him either.
But at 97mph he REALLY should have, he should have seen him and noticed a slightly different road position of the car and the car making the turn. He should have either pinned it when he saw the car was approaching the potential turning or eased off... Either way, if you're coming towards that sort of junction with a car you MAKE SURE you're not where it potentially needs to be when it's due to turn.
I know part of that may not make sense to car users, but it's not uncommon on a bike to go faster to keep yourself out of possible trouble.
Mostly I think the driver would have seen very little of him approaching at that speed. You look, see "nothing in range" considering the speed limit, and turn. From the video you can't see the drivers perspective but at 1.5x the speed limit the biker would only really have himself to blame.
That's mostly. If it was an OAP driving they might have looked 5 seconds before turning. Etc
I know the A47. Its dangerous with frequent accidents. Its mostly a 60 limit single carriageway thats the only route in/out of norfolk to the north. Its often full of HGV's, holiday traffic and tractors.
Theres often people doing 40mph with long queues of frustrated people overtaking when they shouldn't.
In my younger days i was one of them. I had near misses. 97mph is DEFINITELY too fast on this road.
But ask yourself, why does that matter? You should be observing what's there, not what you expect to be there. And if the bike had been going at half the speed, it'd still have been dangerous and wrong to pull out in front of it.
In the video you don't see the car until the last moment because of how much ground the bike is covering. The driver will have been looking as he driving forward, seen nothing oncoming and committed to the turn. The rider would then have appeared in his vision part way through the turn also at the last moment.
Rider couldn't stop in time and had he given himself enough time to react by going slower maybe have gone right and around the car. The driver may have paused to allow the bike past before turning in.
Instead you have the situation of both rider and driver in fright mode. The driver gets the rabbit in the headlights reaction and stops. The rider grabs the brakes. Totally avoidable.
Fair enough. That makes two people in this thread who think the speed was reasonable. One of them is dead because of it.I do ride a motorbike over that though. Like I said, for the road, the conditions, the traffic, I thought his speed was reasonable.
I'm not coming at this from a pious, holier then thou point of view. I must admit I used to drive much nearer the edge in my youth. Luckily it never did me or anyone else any harm although it did result in a couple trips into a hedge or verge and I have seen the error of my ways and drive much more cautiously these days.
But at 97mph he REALLY should have,
I know that, it's not an excuse, and I'm not making one for him.
It bugs me that posters on here are playing the blame game while making assumptions.
This is is the bit I don't fully understand. The differnce in azimuth between the position of a vehicle doing 97mph and one doing 60 is almost zero. If you are looking almost straight down the road if you see one then you see the other. I can accept that he might misjudge the speed of approach, but I don't understand the 'not see' when you have 4 seconds to do it. I find it hard to believe he is looking down the road when he prepares to make the turn.You look, see "nothing in range" considering the speed limit,
According to the article, linked on the previous page, the car driver admitted to not seeing the car behind the rider either.
That speed was IMO well within 'cruising' speed for an experienced biker on a big Japanese sports tourer
See, that's your mistake. The capability of the bike has NOTHING to do with it in this case. It's do to with the interaction between other motorists.
100mph might be within the cruising speed of the bike, but what about when there are cars all over the place not looking very carefully at junctions? What difference does the bike make then? None, as this guy found out.
My point is, to be clear: it's not about who's right, it's about who stays alive.
I've started lifting off the gas in my car around this type of junction because so many people misjudge your speed or simply don't see you.
This +1 million, anything else is putting your life in someone else's hands, someone who may not even know you are there never mind any other potential failings.
That speed was IMO well within 'cruising' speed for an experienced biker on a big Japanese sports tourer.
Along the parts of the road where there is no junctions, yes. Through a junction with cars approaching to turn across your path, absolutely disagree as above.
As folk have said, technically it's the driver's fault but I've had an accident in a fast car as a result of a similar mistaken assumption on my part to the one the rider made. Fortunately no harm done other than to the car. The other driver involved was in the wrong, in that he moved into my path, but the decision that lead to me being in a place where I couldn't avoid him was mine. It was definitely poor judgement and failure to look ahead as to what might happen and I was lucky the the consequences weren't worse.
my maths says the bike at that speed travels 220m in 5 seconds. For the driver surely it would be pretty hard to see a bike 200m away ?
In the video you don't see the car until the last moment because of how much ground the bike is covering.
Car is in a line of others, so hard to pick out individually but the line is obvious enough. Also the wide angle of the camera lens makes it look very small at distance, I suspect
... and:
Speaking at yesterday’s inquest, PC Graham Brooks said both motorists would have been in each other’s available view for seven seconds before impact.
I do ride a motorbike over that though. Like I said, for the road, the conditions, the traffic, I thought his speed was reasonable.
Given the outcome, clearly not completely reasonable?
Unless of course you're saying that his speed had absolutely no influence on the end result?
I get what your saying though, weeksy. I guess my point is that whilst the driver made the manoeuvre that killed him, he perhaps accepted a higher risk of that occurring while travelling at that speed and unfortunately the ball landed on 00.
I don't think the video was released to allow casual observers to lay blame...
I think it was released to remind all of us that we could die or kill someone else if we don't drive carefully and make proper observations at all times.
People speed, people make mistakes, but none of that has to lead to a dead biker and traumatised driver if we take more pride in driving well in the first place...
Along the parts of the road where there is no junctions, yes. Through a junction with cars approaching to turn across your path, absolutely disagree as above.
Yes, that's why they put warning signs up to tell you about the junctions.
The skill one needs to learn, hopefully before this kind of accident occurs to one, is not "when to go fast" but "when to go slow".
IMO, 97mph on a modern bike (or car) on an empty road (of any category really) with good sight lines is NOT excessive. BUT, in this case, i think a more defensive riding style, and hence a realisation that he was approaching a situation he could not control, WOULD have resulting in a reduction in speed, probably, again imo, to around or just below the posted limit.
In that case at say 60mph, had the car driver still made the same error, there may have been a chance to brake and loose enough speed to make the impact more survivable, or in extremis to actually avoid the accident entirely (<< this is very difficult in this kind of situation, because one tends to turn away from where the car is, straight too, unfortunately, where it will be in a few sec when you get there. The trick, but a very very difficult one, is to aim for where the car is currently as it cannot stop instantaneously, so will not be there when you get there)
If the video and its results are not enough for you to form an opinion on the wisdom of such a speed, in such a place then sadly the rider's mum is wasting her time.
Really shocking video which shows just how quickly you can die on the road. Well done to the family for releasing it..Both driver and biker were guilty of not using the best item of safety equipment their brains.
And in any case, there would be over two and a half times more energy in the collision at 97mph compared to 60mph.
iainc
my maths says the bike at that speed travels 220m in 5 seconds. For the driver surely it would be pretty hard to see a bike 200m away ?
You may want to get your eyes tested!!
The driver doesn't need to see it's a bike, or any details, they simply need to see "something" and stop before they complete their maneouver, to take a second look.
Look (at least twice) move once.
This is why looking far up the road is so important, it gives you both situational awareness and time. Both of those are critical.
I have actually followed a car, which overtook a lorry (doing about 30mph) pulled back into the left side of the road, and collided with the back of a massive red farm tractor and trailer (which was around 100m in front of the truck), complete with orange flashing light. How they managed not to spot this is incredible, but all i can think is they didn't look.....
There are two reasons why I'll never own a motorbike.
1) Me
2) Everyone else....
Feel pretty bleugh after watching that, looking forward to getting home and giving my miniteadrinker a good night cuddle.
Also as bigyinn said.
Effin hell ! Nothing else to say
Look (at least twice) move once.
And we all know people don't do this.. so we have to drive/ride bearing that in mind.
I do ride a motorbike over that though. Like I said, for the road, the conditions, the traffic, I thought his speed was reasonable.
well it clearly wasn't as the results show.
If the bike appeared in a saccade of the drivers vision, then he wouldn't have seen it. And coming at him in that speed it was probably unlikely that the driver would get another chance to check that area again, which could also have been in another saccade.
If he was in a saccade, whose fault it is? that's how a humans eyesight works, so it can't be his fault.
Plus as he was coming straight at him then there was no significant movement to alert the driver.
That's how things work and you have to drive/ride appropriately to take account of it and action if needed.
And this is exactly why I got a supermoto bike which will just do the ton but is terrifying at high speeds.
It's going though and my new bike will be unlikely to crack 60, 1949 Matchless
'Proper' bikes are just way too fast and people make mistakes.
A mate of mine pulled out into the path of an oncoming van a couple of years ago which got him side on. He just can't understand how he never saw it coming, admits it was ultimately his carelessness, but remembers the shock at something being there which wasn't there a second before.
But at 97mph he REALLY should have, he should have seen him and noticed a slightly different road position of the car and the car making the turn. He should have either pinned it when he saw the car was approaching the potential turning or eased off... Either way, if you're coming towards that sort of junction with a car you MAKE SURE you're not where it potentially needs to be when it's due to turn.
Not watched the video, not my sort of thing I have a delicate nature, but this is true. Approaching a junction with cars waiting to turn you need to get yourself a blocker either in front or behind. Or get to the junction first. If neither slow up and position yourself to be seen and hope for the best.
Its worth noting that these tyoe of accidents are relatively uncommon.
I do ride a motorbike over that though. Like I said, for the road, the conditions, the traffic, I thought his speed was reasonable.
I really don't want to go back and watch that frame by frame to be sure, but to me it looked like the car would have looked left, seen the car he was about to overtake, then timed his turn to that, I think someone overtaking into the junction at near 100mph, 60%+ over the speed limit is outside of the things I'd be looking for.
The more I have to think about it the less I blame the car driver and the more I feel sorry for them. Because that is probably what I'd have done in the car, and definately isn't what I'd have been doing on a bike.
I really don't want to go back and watch that frame by frame to be sure, but to me it looked like the car would have looked left, seen the car he was about to overtake, then timed his turn to that,
Would you really leave a [i]7 second[/i] gap between checking the road and starting your turn? What are you doing in the meantime? What exactly are you looking at if you aren't looking where you are going?
What I don't understand, and what I think was ultimately his undoing, is why the rider didn't anticipate that manoeuvre.
Watching the video, you can see the car in a position ready to turn, and indicating, from quite a long way away. Motorcycling 101 is to expect the driver not to see you, and to do exactly what they did. In that situation, speed aside, I'd have been braking hard a long way before the motorist started to move [i]just in case[/i] they hadn't seen me. Sports bikes have exceptional brakes, especially in straight lines. The rider didn't do that, with tragic consequences.
If you're going to drive / ride fast, you need exceptional observational skills, and you need to assume that everyone else is a myopic, erratic idiot. I wonder how long he'd been riding / had that bike? Basic mistake which cost him dearly. Shame.
I wonder how long he'd been riding
Since he was a kid his Mum says. I suspect he might have been pumped up from the race/(track day?) he'd just attended.
97 through traffic on a busy A road! Trying to see or judge the speed of a narrow object moving towards you at more than 150% of the speed limit and probably 200% of the safe limit for the conditions and volume of traffic is going to be a challenge.
I feel sorry for the car driver.
Since he was a kid his Mum says.
Ah, right. I didn't listen to the preamble, watched it without sound.
If you read the thread: The car driver didn't fail to judge: He didn't 'see'. How big do things have to be for you not to 'see' them? How long before you initiate a turn across the road do you check to see if it is clear to turn? An awful lot of people seem to be quoting the speed without actually asking themselves how that relates to the real world and what that implies about what you expect is reasonable for a driver to do.
As a an ex biker, i would say if he hadn't been killed that day, it was on the cards at some point. I would describe his riding as reckless.
I feel sorry for the car driver.
My initial gut reaction was "I bloody don't, they should've looked." But you know what, you're right; simply because, people make mistakes. Blame aside, a momentary lapse of concentration (or two) and someone's dead. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
twinw4ll +1
First thing my instructor told me before I got on my bike was "All those bastards out there are out to kill you, remember that and ride accordingly."
Tragic for someone so young to die in such a pointless manner, but I would say he was riding recklessly by not reading the road, adjusting his speed accordingly and observing the hazards. V sad.
I ride motorbikes a lot and that was very painful to watch
I've been involved in a similar accident some years ago where a car turned across me and hit me hard. 30mph limit, don't recall my speed but I don't think it was too far off 30.
With that type of accident, once the car starts to go, the collision is almost inevitable. Both vehicles are heading to the point of a wedge.
Unless there's run off to the right, it's almost impossible to avoid if it's out of your braking zone, as said, your won't turn a bike much at that speed.
I would hope that I wouldn't put myself in that situation at that speed but that vid has certainly made me even more aware of that type of potential danger.
Dark bike (maybe without lights)
Bikes have had their lights hard wired on for many years now. That one was new enough to be included
See, that's your mistake. The capability of the bike has NOTHING to do with it in this case. It's do to with the interaction between other motorists.100mph might be within the cruising speed of the bike, but what about when there are cars all over the place not looking very carefully at junctions? What difference does the bike make then? None, as this guy found out.
My point is, to be clear: it's not about who's right, it's about who stays alive.
Mol, I agree 100%
For the driver surely it would be pretty hard to see a bike 200m away ?
Not at all. You [i]should[/i] bee looking as far as you can possibly see. 200m is bugger all. If i can see it I'll plan ahead a mile or more. Like on a motorway when there's a big valley and you can see the traffic going up the other side.
I do ride a motorbike over that though. Like I said, for the road, the conditions, the traffic, I thought his speed was reasonable.
As a motorcyclist you ,sir, are talking bollocks. It was reasonable if there was no traffic and no junctions, yes, maybe, but then and there? Are you insane?
How big do things have to be for you not to 'see' them?
" But you know what, you're right; simply because, people make mistakes
but as that RAF blokes article points out - something not being seen because it is in a saccade is a common occurrence, it is not a mistake.
Not as insane as I used to be. I do 90% of my riding on track now. I am far slower than I used to be. That said, I still do t believe his speed was inappropriate. Results of course argue against me.
Fwiw I think the video is pointless.most drivers are rubbish, this won't improve them. Many bikers ride quickly, this won't change them either.
Although, this being stw and full of martyrs and sanctimonious people, I doubt many will agree.