Not seeing something that is there is not checking properly. That’s a misjudgement.

^ yes, but a lot of people are implying that the biker’s speed led the car driver to think he had more time to make the turn than he had. He may have made a bad decision to turn without looking properly, but that isn’t the same as misjudging the speed.

The speed thing was kicked off (and on and on) when some thought that the speed was fine, and in fact probably a bit slow and the 100mph was fine on public roads (or maybe a little pedestrian)

The speed thing was kicked off (and on and on) when some thought that the speed was fine, and in fact probably a bit slow and the 100mph was fine on public roads (or maybe a little pedestrian)

Yes. It is rather sad that the purpose of the release of the video was for people to learn. Sadly it seems those most in need of taking on board the lesson just don’t get it.

Thw driver probably didn’t see the rider due to your brain creating images by piecing together images called saccades.

We are only human

Read this http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/

Did put it up earlier but dont think anyone read the link.

They did, and it was commented on. That’s more common when you’re scanning from left to right, such as at a t-junction, it doesn’t happen when you look straight ahead.

Not seeing something that is there is not checking properly. That’s a misjudgement.

We’re arguing semantics here, but I think there’s a difference between thinking you’ve got time to go through a gap that’s smaller than you think (ie the driver underestimated the speed of the bike) and not perceiving another vehicle in the gap (SMIDSY). Perception’s nowhere near as solid as we like to think it is, have a look at The Invisible Gorilla – I don’t think you can call it a misjudgement if the driver genuinely looked and genuinely didn’t see the bike (or the car he’d overtaken).

The video is sobering.

I detest all this talk about ‘appropriate speeds’ and ‘blindly following speed limits’. It’s a bloody road, not a race track. Those limits are there to keep all users safe. You don’t have to drive on the Snake or Woodhead passes for very long to realise that solid white lines and speed limits don’t mean a thing to those with greater skills and more heightened senses than your average driver. A guy I knew was a great rider. Lost control of his GSXR 750 whilst exceeding the speed limit on the Mt Lofty Road, slid into on coming traffic and was killed. I would put my mortgage on that other driver never feeling the same again.

I am aware that there is no point in having an opinion on the internet because there is always someone who has read more, done more, knows more, and I’m sure someone will be along to critique my opinion, bang on about semantics and tell me they have done their Pass Plus but here’s what I think about this whole video and topic:

The video shows how quickly the lights can be turned out. He probably did that loads of times but that one time the factors came against him and he never went home.

Lastly, a license is not a right, it’s a privilege. If you’re so brilliant and want to go faster than deemed legal (safe in the knowledge you’ll never screw up because you’re so aware and trained), frig off to a track day. I don’t trust you or your brilliant skills.

But you get more bragging rights driving idiot speeds on the road, if the cocks take it to the track there will always be somebody with a faster lap time and the ego isn’t boosted as much and your mates propping up the bar will turn away, take another sip of mass produced piss lager and change the subject to football.

Well put phunkmaster

+1 what phunkmaster said! Sickening video and easily avoided. Whilst cycling around the roads of North Wales I see many motorcycles going far to fast and taking unnecessary risks the fatalities in the last year are testament to that, you can never prejudge what another road user will do.

Haha! MrSmith

Both parties at fault, however the biker would still be alive if he wasn’t speeding.

Came into this a bit late but the statement above is not true I’m afraid. I attended a very similar incident last year (bike had just overtaken car) where the biker was almost certainly doing <60 mph on a quiet country road but he outcome was the same.

It was one of the reasons I got rid of my bike this year as I had that constant nagging feeling that one day my luck would run out despite riding very defensively. It’s been pointed out already that a quick blat on the throttle can take you to very high speed and on public roads it’s only a matter of time before the inevitable happens.

FWIW there is no way would I have been doing that speed at that point on a bike.

Both parties at fault, however the biker would still be alive if he wasn’t speeding.

I think he would have been alive if he wasn’t doing over 90mph for the simple reason that if he’d been doing 60 or maybe even 70 for the length of time he was on that stretch the car that turned into his path would’ve been & gone & that particular episode would never have happened. (Haven’t read every post so don’t know if this has been mentioned)

Naughty riding but also a misjudgement by the car driver.

Yeah, but that’s pretty tenuous. By that argument he’d have been alive if he was going faster, and still have had an accident if he’d been doing 40 all day but taken bad for a crap before he left the garage. Or he might’ve missed that car and been taken out by the next one down the road.

“What if” isn’t really all that helpful here I don’t think. You can habitually ride it like you’ve stolen it, or just have a momentary lapse one day, and either way you can get caught if the chips fall badly. See Molgrips and his speeding ticket.

reviewed the footage again and yes I think speed played a significant part in the accident. ( esp. from the cars POV ) – i am not a biker though. When the car first started to turn he was quite some distance away and didn’t really have any options at that speed. (imho) seeing an object in the distance (the bike) and guaging it’s rate coming at you are two different things and speed limits ideally help determine this as well as the other more obvious safety factors.

What you say is very true Cougar & if he’d been doing 120 it probably wouldn’t have happened but we are talking mainly about the speed he was doing in a 60 zone aren’t we?
Anyway, I’m not a biker & I don’t do that type of speed in the car where there’s junctions.

Phunkmaster +1

My brother in law had his brand new Ducati written off when someone pulled out on him who claimed they had not seen him and he must off been speeding. His insurance company decided on 50/50 and the police at the scene had little sympathy as they took the view people on huge sports bikes out for a weekend ride did not stick to the speed limits.

In the original thread the driver made a mistake (drivers(people)do). The motorcyclist took a deliberate calculated risk that backfired resulting in his death.
Tragic.

I’m sorry, but this makes it sound like pulling out without looking properly is just something that happens, as if it is an inevitable fact of driving. It isn’t. it doesn’t take much care to pay attention to what you are doing when you drive. People choose not to because they are complacent. That is what this driver did and that is why he was convicted.
Of course the guy on the bike was going too fast. It is pretty bleedin’ obvious (well to all but a tiny few). That does not excuse what the driver did.

I’m sorry, but this makes it sound like pulling out without looking properly is just something that happens, as if it is an inevitable fact of driving.

The point is you have no control over other people. Do what you can to look after yourself. Dead and right is still Dead. The car should have looked, at 50/60mph the rider would have had more time to react. He would also have still been behind the other cars not at the front of the line.

The point is you have no control over other people. Do what you can to look after yourself. Dead and right is still Dead. The car should have looked, at 50/60mph the rider would have had more time to react. He would also have still been behind the other cars not at the front of the line.

I couldn’t agree more. But I still think people are using this to absolve the driver, and more to the point, this means they are not learning anything about their own driving.

Doesn’t excuse no. I don’t imagine for a moment the driver will ever get over it or forgive themselves. The point is we are all capable of making mistakes, as is everyone else out on the road. Some more than others, maybe through natural acuity, or lack of, or extended training, or lack of it. The risk is always there, and even the naturally gifted highly trained, some days through natural variables that risk will be greater, and some day a numpty up the road will turn without looking properly. I’ve had it, I sure many people out there have, I’ve also misjudged a timing before (fortunately not much, slight clenching only). I am not perfect. So I don’t drive like it.

The driver was convicted for his part of the accident, if the motorcyclist had lived he would have been prosecuted for his part too .

Complacency vs flagrant disregard for the law.

Complacency when behind the wheel in this context = driving without due care and attention. That is a blatant disregard of the law. This is what I think you are missing. The lack of care is something you can do something about, it is something you can consciously change by recognising your responsibilities as a driver and paying attention to what you are doing. It is just as bad, and as fatal, as exceeding the speed limit. This is the point of the video.

I don’t imagine for a moment the driver will ever get over it or forgive themselves.

But we don’t know that, that is making assumptions on what you feel is correct, the same as other people judging what is an appropriate speed and that other drivers will not make mistakes.

I’m not judging the driver as one of those people, but we often see reoffending on the road, whether speeding, drink driving or driving without due care and attention.

Complacency can result in a small fender bender in a supermarket carpark.
Using public roads like your own personal race track often has greater consequences .

It can do of course. But it can also result in someone’s death…

Or contribute , in this case.

And the motorcyclists behaviour was selfish as when he choose to take his deliberate calculated risk he would have known that if it had gone tits up there would be a real chance that the result of his behaviour would put not just himself but others at risk .

If you deliberately drive like a cock and come unstuck my sympathies are with your family not you .

phunkmaster

I detest all this talk about ‘appropriate speeds’ and ‘blindly following speed limits’. It’s a bloody road, not a race track. Those limits are there to keep all users safe.

Except the very thing the speed limit CAN’T do is keep you safe. The appropriate speed for any particular section of road is defined by a set of variables so complex that the simple, blanket, speed limit is woefully inadequate.

Lets be quite clear here: The LEGAL LIMIT is an average, and entirely arbitary speed limit, set a long time ago, based on no, or little science whatso ever. It exists to help motorists travel at an average speed that is, broadly speaking, safe enough. It is not 100% safe, nor by the same token is exceeding it, even by 0.1mph, 100% unsafe. As a legal limit it cannot have a “grayscale” to it, it has to be black and white i.e. You are either exceeding it, or you aren’t.
Unfortunately, driving is very grayscale, and hence the simple “legal limit” is generally a very poor indicator of the speed you should be travelling down any particular road at any particular time.

Now, i am not saying you should ignore the limit and drive like a lunatic, quite the opposite, and in fact, often the appropriate speed is much much lower than the legal limit.

What i am advocating this that as a driver you take both control and responsibility for your choice of speed. You make conscious, informed decisions on how fast you are travelling at all times, and you modify that speed based on all the information and experience you can gather.

If we teach drivers proper roadcraft when they learn, and ensure they are regularly refreshed in those skills, then whatever situation they come upon, they will be capable of deciding a sensible and appropriate speed. They won’t just have to look at a sign to decide how fast to drive.

If we keep going with this current policy of ever lower speed limits to cater for the lowest common denominator (which is extremely low, lets say drunk drivers, or drivers on their phone), all that achieves is to convince the larger proportion of drivers who’s brain says “I can do 50 down here, why is the limit 40?” that limits are silly and hence it becomes “normal” to exceed them on a regular basis. Then, when their skills let them down at a crucial moment, there is a good chance they WILL be travelling excessively fast!

Also excessively low speed limits also tends to mean that people become “sheep” and switch off. They just follow the car ahead and pay very little attention to the road. If this occurs, the only speed limit which is safe is zero mph. We’ve all followed one of the “roaring40s” as i call them, who simply go 40mph everywhere, no matter what the road type or conditions are like (or what the speed limit is).

Unfortunately, as i mentioned in an earlier post, the social and political will to properly revamp our system of driver licencing is simply not there. It would lead to less social mobility, especially for the poorer/less educated user, which wouldn’t be a “vote winner” so no party is going to do it.

It’s not just road conditions it’s also a roads situation .

My local busy high street 20mph, residential road just outside 30 mph ,country lane of that 50mph.
Motorway 70 mph.

The road conditions are better on my high street than the country lane yet 30 mph slower.

It’s about consideration and consequences.

Maxtorque, completely agree with you. What’s needed is a complete revamp of driver education and training, not lower speed limits. I’d say that a good, well trained and observant driver is safer driving at above the limit than a poorly trained driver driving at well below the limit. Sure a crash at a higher speed could have a worse result than a crash at a lower speed, but surely the emphasis should be more on not having that crash in the first place.

The other thing that’s needed is more police patrol cars on the road targeting bad driving and inapropriate speed for the conditions, rather than just enforcing a blanket limit. Clearly 100mph on an empty motorway (given the right conditions) is perfectly safe, but 35-40mph down a high street would be idiotic, yet the police have no discresion here and the driver on the motorway could easily end up loosing his licence.

A guy I had the misfortune of knowing once used to regularly drink and drive. His misguided theory was that the police were so obsessed with speeders and relying on speed cameras these days that provided he didn’t exceed the speed limit then he’d not get caught. Crazy, guy was an idiot, but so far as I’m aware during the time I knew him, he didn’t get caught. Was seriously tempted to dob him in though.

I heard a theory once that if the limit on motorways and NSL roads was removed, empowering drivers to select their own speed according to conditions, but that all drivers had to undertake further training, and perhaps re-sit a test every 10 years or so then despite higher speeds of some vehicles, road safety as a whole would be much improved. Would that work? Sounds reasonable to me.

Clearly in this case both parties are at fault. The car driver didn’t look, but the speed of the motorbike passing a busy junction was very reckless. So very bad judgement from both sides I’d say. That bad judgement won’t be removed by lowering the speed limit, only by making sure that drivers are better trained in the first place.

That bad judgement won’t be removed by lowering the speed limit, only by making sure that drivers are better trained in the first place.

removed from the decision making process.

People driving for thrills on public roads is not due to poor driver training , in fact people taking advanced driving courses then given free reign of the roads without speed limits may even encourage thrill seeking drivers.

That bad judgement won’t be removed by lowering the speed limit, only by making sure that drivers are better trained in the first place.

removed from the decision making process.

Exactly, but having that decision making process, however fallible, is what makes it nice to be alive as a human. Remove that and we’ll all become vegetables? We can’t engineer all risk out of life, if we’re all wrapped up in cotton wool for fear of an accident then life will simply become not worth living.

agent007

The other thing that’s needed is more police patrol cars on the road

This^^^ x100.

Currently, if you speed past a speed camera, you just get a letter in the post and a fine. For most drivers that simply makes them even more “anti establishment” and most will completely fail to connect their excess speed with a failure to control their speed at critical moments.

The “historical” option of getting pulled over by a real human being however, and getting both a telling off and a fine is soo much better. Often, drivers are simply not skilled enough to recognise their excessive speed, and having it explained to you by a human is many many more times more likely to result in both remembering that advice and acting in a different manner next time!

Also, those extra police personal can do other stuff when they are not catching people speeding, unlike the expensive cameras that are a total one trick pony………

Expensive cameras, they are little gold mines .

Expensive cameras indeed .

chip
People driving for thrills on public roads is not due to poor driver training

Er, it kinda is. Proper training and applying the methodolgy of “Roadcraft” means than even people going out for “thrills” will do so in a significantly safer fashion. In this case, after overtaking that car, the bike should have realised the threat from the car “waiting” to turn, reduced his speed and taken up a much more defensive road position. Then when the car had pulled out he could have braked, avoided the car, and gone back to “hooning” again, rather than the horrible events that actually occurred.

Once again, this brings us back to appropriate speed for a given scenario NOT being a fixed arbitrary limit. Every 10sec or so, you need to ask yourself “Is the speed i am currently doing appropriate?”.

In highly complex situations, you may need to be continuously modifying your speed as the situation unfolds.

This brings us to the key skill of observation, which is at the absolute root of Roadcraft. Looking far down the road, using multiple observations to form a mental picture of the scenario, and even doing mental “what if” estimations in your head. Do this, and you’ll find you are not “surprised” when the unexpected occurs!

People driving for thrills on public roads is not due to poor driver training , in fact people taking advanced driving courses then given free reign of the roads without speed limits may even encourage thrill seeking drivers.

Would be interesting to see the stats on this. Can’t find any but the fact that most insurance companies offer you an extra discount on your car insurance premium if you’ve passed an advanced driving test would imply (from whatever stats the insurance companies have) that you’re a lower risk and safer driver than someone whose not had the extra training.