# Suspended term for 156mph motorbiker



## Jake (11 Jun 2009)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/8095559.stm


----------



## fossyant (11 Jun 2009)

If you look at the stills from the video below, you can see how it happened..... car pulled out to overtake another, then these two are speeding along coming up to the rear of the cars....go to overtake and bang....... into a van......... stupid.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...road-death-camera-race-motorbikes-170mph.html


----------



## thomas (11 Jun 2009)

Unfortunately I don't really have any sympathy.


----------



## Jake (11 Jun 2009)

aweful for the people there when it happened and emergency services who went to help.


----------



## ComedyPilot (11 Jun 2009)

The riding in the video (BBC) is typical of 'straight line' merchants. 

What I would like to ask, is what part did the dark car in front play in the crash?

In the first pic it is clear to see there are vehicles on coming, the silver mondeo is clearly to the nearside, and the dark car (Astra?) is close behind it and more central in the carriageway. The bike that crashes looks like it is leaning to the offside (starting to overtake). At this point the time on the video is ??:32:23.

At time 41:34:19, less than 2 seconds later(?) the crash picture shows the silver mondeo clearly to the nearside, and the Astra level or slightly ahead of it and straddling the central hatching. There is clearly debris as a result of the collision between the bike and the Astra, and the white van is closing. 

The paper then goes on "Minutes later Mr Prowse overtook a Ford Mondeo at 100mph, *clipped a hatchback* and was thrown under a van."

Yes, the motorcyclist paid for his recklessness with his life, but there is no mention of the court's view on the involvement of the Astra driver, whose actions in my eyes had to be at least a contributory factor?


----------



## PBancroft (11 Jun 2009)

> Suspended term for 156mph *mountainbiker*


Errr.... wow.

Anyway, I am somewhat saddened to see there is no mention of what effect the suspended sentence has had upon this person's licence. Will they be allowed back on the road again, if so, why...?


----------



## thomas (11 Jun 2009)

ComedyPilot said:


> Yes, the motorcyclist paid for his recklessness with his life, but there is no mention of the court's view on the involvement of the Astra driver, whose actions in my eyes had to be at least a contributory factor?



I'd want to see the whole clip before jumping to conclusions. I think, in the end of the day, they gambled their lives and one of them lost.


----------



## iGaz (11 Jun 2009)

I remember this all too well, as I live and work not more than half a mile from the scene of this crash!! Just down the road from the crash at the Loggans Moor roundabout is a Mcdonalds where every Tuesday hundreds of bikers gather.

the speeds at which these people get up to on the hayle bypass is bloody lethal and there have been about 10 accidents in the past 4 years mostly fatal!! And usuall involving bikers!

The only sympathy I have are with the riders families and the poor couple in the camper van coming the other way!


----------



## Jim_Noir (11 Jun 2009)

Out side my work is a long straight and the speeds the bikes and cars hit out there is shocking... and yes I cycle along that!


----------



## ComedyPilot (11 Jun 2009)

thomas said:


> I'd want to see the whole clip before jumping to conclusions. I think, in the end of the day, they gambled their lives and one of them lost.



I have seen the BBC clip which shows the speeding, clearly very fast. 

I don't understand what you mean about jumping to conclusions - I certainly aren't.

I am writing about pure data. The speed indicated on the bike is a fact, the position of the relevant vehicles in the pictures and the timing on the video is a fact. 

I have only asked a question, how did the Astra come to be straddling the white lines in the middle of the road when there were oncoming vehicles? 

That isn't jumping to a conclusion, it is asking for explanation.

Yes, the bikes were overtaking at speed and one of the riders paid with their life, but the question still remains, what view did the court have of the actions of the Astra driver? 

The fact there was contact between it and the bike makes it relevant, the fact on video there are clearly on-coming vehicles makes the Astra's position in the second picture relevant.

I am asking questions the majority of public don't see as they take journalists word as gospel.

I just took one look at the pictures and have an opinion on how it happened, I am just interested (and amazed) that no-one seems to find the Astra drivers actions to be in any way contributory to the collision, when as clearly depicted in the images they are.

The people that have wrote that the biker 'got what he deserved' due to his speeding have expressed their opinion, but is that not jumping to a conclusion?




God, I love a good debate.


----------



## Crankarm (11 Jun 2009)

Another idiot has thankfully removed himself from the gene pool.


----------



## very-near (11 Jun 2009)

Crankarm said:


> Another idiot has thankfully removed himself from the gene pool.



He was still someones son and someones father. He paid for his poor judgement with his life.

Very uncharitable..

Having seen a very serious accident a few weeks ago very close up, I feel very sorry for the occupants of the camper. It must have been horrific.


----------



## ferret fur (11 Jun 2009)

There is a video clip which shows most of it. It looks like the astra is actually signally to overtake (albeit in a poor place to do it with oncoming traffic) & the guy on the bike is hitting about 90mph & can't stop in time. Wouldn't have thought you could really blame the astra driver in the circumstances.
Stupid way to go... :-(


----------



## 2Loose (11 Jun 2009)

I think speed has it's place when it is safe and not inconsiderate to do so. This obviously wasn't.
From the vid, I see the biker making a risky and fast overtake at speed when the Astra started to manoeuvre without checking (or seeing...mirror signal, manoe...) the bikers position and speed. The biker hadn't foreseen this and is effectively pushed into the path of oncoming traffic... Two bits of bad driving. 1 fatality and a bunch of horribly affected people. It is impatience, not speeding on its own, that kills.


----------



## Mr Celine (11 Jun 2009)

ComedyPilot said:


> I have only asked a question, how did the Astra come to be straddling the white lines in the middle of the road when there were oncoming vehicles?



Perhaps because it was overtaking? 

In the earlier photo the Astra appears to be indicating. The later photo shows that there is (just) room to overtake without fouling the oncoming lane. The lines bordering the hatched area are broken so it is not illegal to use or straddle the hatched area. Even if the Astra driver mirror-signal-manoeuvred the deceased was travelling so much faster than the rest of the traffic that the Astra driver may not have noticed him or may have misjudged his speed.


----------



## Bman (12 Jun 2009)

I cant blame anyone for speculating. We need to see the whole video to be sure of the exact situation. We dont know because it is being hidden from us. That black car *is* in a strange position. 

I think the (driver of the) black car started an overtake at the same time as the motorcyclist was trying the same thing. The motorcyclist had no time to react due to excessive speed. The rest we can work out ourselves.


----------



## Crankarm (12 Jun 2009)

very-near said:


> He was still someones son and someones father. He paid for his poor judgement with his life.


Indeed. I'm sure they are grieving.



very-near said:


> Very uncharitable..



Not really. He was travelling at a mind bogglingly stupid speed on the public roads riding like a complete idiot with no regard for any one else's safety let alone his own. He deserved what he got. It's unfortunate that it involved other people. Had your family or friends been in the camper van I think your comment would be even less charitable.

On nice Sundays there are large groups of bikers tearing around the small country roads in my area. Most go a little bit too fast but slow down when they see other traffic including cyclists, but there are a few who are total nutters who scare the sh1t out of me. In my opinion shouldn't be allowed to a ride rocking horse let alone a high powered motor bike. The more that come a cropper the better. I just hope they don't take anyone with them who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.



very-near said:


> Having seen a very serious accident a few weeks ago very close up, I feel very sorry for the occupants of the camper. It must have been horrific.


For sure.


----------



## Black Sheep (12 Jun 2009)

Mr Celine said:


> Perhaps because it was overtaking?
> 
> In the earlier photo the Astra appears to be indicating. The later photo shows that there is (just) room to overtake without fouling the oncoming lane. The lines bordering the hatched area are broken so it is not illegal to use or straddle the hatched area. Even if the Astra driver mirror-signal-manoeuvred the deceased was travelling so much faster than the rest of the traffic that the Astra driver may not have noticed him or may have misjudged his speed.



its hatched, your not allowed into it is what i was taught.


----------



## marinyork (12 Jun 2009)

The astra's position is very dodgy. I'm afraid I agree with Comedy Pilot, although obviously the biker's mostly to blame, you'd have to say clearly from those pictures the astra driver has a lot to answer for. I can't really square how you can prosecute one and not the other on a lesser charge.

Ironically although not safe to do so, the motorbike's overtake might be regarded as vaguely going in the legal direction because of the stupid position of the astra and the bike's excessive speed it was necessary to enter into and past the diagonal white lines!


----------



## very-near (12 Jun 2009)

Crankarm said:


> Indeed. I'm sure they are grieving.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Having seen a car driver nearly kill my friend with a 'poor judgment call' (doing a U/turn on solid white lines) and giving him substantial lifelong injuries in the process (and writing my m/cycle off in the bargain), do I or my mate think that the driver, his wife, and 3 year old son deserved die because of it - absolutely not. 
Do I think they deserved to be injured and suffer the 12 hours of major surgery, and the agony of a broken hip, broken femur, 6 breaks in their forearm, and nerve damage causing paralysis in their arm in the way my mate has suffered, absolutely not.

The biker in the article like the driver who caused my mates accident made a bad judgment call. The rider didn't 'deserve' to die for it, and I think if you asked anyone who witnessed it if they felt the same way, I have no doubt they would say no, that they wouldn't wish that sort of death on anyone.

As for your 'all bikers who break the speed limit deserve to die' attitude, i'm really trying to figure out if you are just a keyboard warrior, a total twat, or both!*


----------



## very-near (12 Jun 2009)

marinyork said:


> The astra's position is very dodgy. I'm afraid I agree with Comedy Pilot, although obviously the biker's mostly to blame, you'd have to say clearly from those pictures the astra driver has a lot to answer for. I can't really square how you can prosecute one and not the other on a lesser charge.
> 
> Ironically although not safe to do so, the motorbike's overtake might be regarded as vaguely going in the legal direction because of the stupid position of the astra and the bike's excessive speed it was necessary to enter into and past the diagonal white lines!



Overtaking at that point is a legal maneuver. The lines were broken on the road


----------



## Bodhbh (12 Jun 2009)

It's just stupid. Someone I knew at school was killed speeding down an A-road at a ton fifty. A van simply pulled a side road and no time to react, bang. No one expects or allows for stuff flying down the road at such speeds. It's russian roulette.


----------



## thomas (12 Jun 2009)

Black Sheep said:


> its hatched, your not allowed into it is what i was taught.




I can't remeber of the top of my head but I think there are restrictions to it! Anyone care to quote my a bit of HC?


----------



## very-near (12 Jun 2009)

thomas said:


> I can't remeber of the top of my head but I think there are restrictions to it! Anyone care to quote my a bit of HC?



If the lines are solid, then you can't cross them, if they are not, they are advisory.

You can legally overtake a vehicle where there is a solid line provided you don't actually cross that white line.


----------



## thomas (12 Jun 2009)

very-near said:


> If the lines are solid, then you can't cross them, if they are not, they are advisory.
> 
> You can legally overtake a vehicle where there is a solid line provided you don't actually cross that white line.



Are there not speed restrictions in place? I believe (though forgive me when i turn out to be wrong) that you can only overtake when the thing your overtaking is doing 10mph or less?

edit: okay, that was wrong!

*if the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so*

I doubt it was necessary, therefore even if it was safe he shouldn't of overtaken.

Though, my 10mph thing wasn't just made up completely 

Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you *MUST NOT* cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.


----------



## jimboalee (12 Jun 2009)

Similar things happen at the Bassett's Pole, north of Brum.


----------



## very-near (12 Jun 2009)

thomas said:


> Are there not speed restrictions in place? I believe (though forgive me when i turn out to be wrong) that you can only overtake when the thing your overtaking is doing 10mph or less?



That is actually applicable to crossing the solid lines. Most roads where these lines are in place are too narrow to safely fit a car overtaking a cycle, but it isn't an issue for a motorcycle as there is room for both (obviously with care)


----------



## very-near (12 Jun 2009)

thomas said:


> Are there not speed restrictions in place? I believe (though forgive me when i turn out to be wrong) that you can only overtake when the thing your overtaking is doing 10mph or less?
> 
> edit: okay, that was wrong!
> 
> ...



That is applicable to the actions of both the bike and the car. The difference is that a bike can use that space with a greater margin of safety than a car given its much narrower footprint - the speeding issue is obviously aside to this.


----------



## thomas (12 Jun 2009)

very-near said:


> That is actually applicable to crossing the solid lines. Most roads where these lines are in place are too narrow to safely fit a car overtaking a cycle, but it isn't an issue for a motorcycle as there is room for both (obviously with care)




It does mean that a lot of the times I'm overtaken on the way to work it would be illegal (I doubt I drop below 10). However, I can't complain too much as I overtake them back, when there are solids but they are moving less than 10 (technically, depending on how you read it, that might not be allowed because they're not stationairy - seems a bit discrimantory though).


----------



## XmisterIS (12 Jun 2009)

That is awful.

When I'm on my (motor)bike I am very aware of just how fast it can go and just how much it would hurt if I collided with a car. For that reason, I only open the throttle on empty roads. Also, I don't have a sports bike, I have a "street" bike - designed for lots of low-end torque (i.e. shedloads of low-end acceleration), but not insane top speed - which is nice, because I can out-accelerate anything on four wheels from a standing start at traffic lights - even the lotus elise that tried to race me off the lights the other day . He then overtook me when I'd got up to 70, but I didn't care.

I think these two guys were just nuts. Really, really nuts. I feel sorry for the guy who died, he never got the chance to learn his lesson. I feel very sorry for the poor innocent people in the car that he slammed into. The Astra driver was an unobservant idiot, but then he probably didn't expect to have a nutcase biker trying to overtake him at 100+mph in traffic. I should imagine that the guy who got the three year ban will need to take an extended test to get his licence back - and he might even be compulsory restricted to an A2 licence for two years.


----------



## very-near (12 Jun 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Similar things happen at the Bassett's Pole, north of Brum.



I've been there 'once' about 5 years ago.

We have regular bike meetings down this way at various different pubs in the area, but 'stunt pilots' are told to take a hike and 'not' to come back if they start to mess around.


----------



## very-near (12 Jun 2009)

XmisterIS said:


> That is awful.
> 
> When I'm on my (motor)bike I am very aware of just how fast it can go and just how much it would hurt if I collided with a car. For that reason, I only open the throttle on empty roads. Also, I don't have a sports bike, I have a "street" bike - designed for lots of low-end torque (i.e. shedloads of low-end acceleration), but not insane top speed - which is nice, because I can out-accelerate anything on four wheels from a standing start at traffic lights - even the lotus elise that tried to race me off the lights the other day . He then overtook me when I'd got up to 70, but I didn't care.
> 
> I think these two guys were just nuts. Really, really nuts. I feel sorry for the guy who died, he never got the chance to learn his lesson. I feel very sorry for the poor innocent people in the car that he slammed into. The Astra driver was an unobservant idiot, but then he probably didn't expect to have a nutcase biker trying to overtake him at 100+mph in traffic. I should imagine that the guy who got the three year ban will need to take an extended test to get his licence back - and he might even be compulsory restricted to an A2 licence for two years.



From the still frame, you cannot tell if he just swerved into the path of the bike to get past the other car, or was already there. I suspect he did the former as the bike would have had chance to jump on the brakes and scrub the speed off if he was approaching the Astra which was already 'out there'

As for racing cars off the lights, why bother ?
You know you already have the performance to always leave them standing. It is also a criminal offence in its own right and not something I'd want to own up to on a public BB.


----------



## XmisterIS (12 Jun 2009)

He tried to race me, not the other way around!


----------



## Watt-O (12 Jun 2009)

XmisterIS said:


> That is awful.
> 
> When I'm on my (motor)bike I am very aware of just how fast it can go and just how much it would hurt if I collided with a car. For that reason, I only open the throttle on empty roads. Also, I don't have a sports bike, I have a "street" bike - designed for lots of low-end torque (i.e. shedloads of low-end acceleration), but not insane top speed - which is nice, because I can out-accelerate anything on four wheels from a standing start at traffic lights - even the lotus elise that tried to race me off the lights the other day . He then overtook me when I'd got up to 70, but I didn't care.
> 
> I think these two guys were just nuts. Really, really nuts. I feel sorry for the guy who died, he never got the chance to learn his lesson. I feel very sorry for the poor innocent people in the car that he slammed into. The Astra driver was an unobservant idiot, but then he probably didn't expect to have a nutcase biker trying to overtake him at 100+mph in traffic. I should imagine that the guy who got the three year ban will need to take an extended test to get his licence back - and he might even be compulsory restricted to an A2 licence for two years.



The rider was 46 years old when he died. Clearly he was a slow learner. I gave up motor bikes when I was 17, they were just too much fun to drive I felt I couldn't trust myself on them.


----------



## Crankarm (12 Jun 2009)

very-near said:


> *As for your 'all bikers who break the speed limit deserve to die' attitude, i'm really trying to figure out if you are just a keyboard warrior, a total twat, or both!*



I don't think I've suggested that at all. You are clearly not an objective observer. Travelling at twice the legal speed limit on public highway amongst other road users is insane behaviour. The consequences of such excessive speed are obvious to the reasonable minded person. You blame everyone except the motorcyclist. Your comments clearly add a thick slice of partiality being a petrol head biker yourself and your insults clearly reveal you as an ignorant knuckle dragger.


----------



## XmisterIS (12 Jun 2009)

Very slow learner!

I am 33 and started riding motorbikes last year (I got a 50cc 'ped and just got "the bug"!).

I am very glad that I came to it now rather than earlier in life ... if I'd started at 17 I am sure I would have killed myself by now. I can see myself riding my current bike until it dies of old age, then I'll probably get a nice comfy tourer - probably a Honda Deauville, or something similar.

EDIT: This is in response to Watt-O's post!


----------



## very-near (12 Jun 2009)

Crankarm said:


> I don't think I've suggested that at all. You are clearly not an objective observer. Travelling at twice the legal speed limit on public highway amongst other road users is insane behaviour. The consequences of such excessive speed are obvious to the reasonable minded person. You blame everyone except the motorcyclist. Your comments clearly add a thick slice of partiality being a petrol head biker yourself and your insults clearly reveal you as an ignorant knuckle dragger.





> In my opinion shouldn't be allowed to a ride rocking horse let alone a high powered motor bike. *The more that come a cropper the better*



I've re-quoted you to refresh your memory - your impartiality is clear to see 

I am not absolving the biker of his actions - he paid the ultimate price, but I am merely trying to draw a more balanced viewpoint given the limited information available.

The bikers actions alone were clearly not the reason why he ended up under the wheels of the camper van.


----------



## thomas (12 Jun 2009)

very-near said:


> The bikers actions alone were clearly not the reason why he ended up under the wheels of the camper van.



I assume the result would have been the same if he was travelling at a sensible speed and didn't overtake, unsafely?


----------



## very-near (12 Jun 2009)

thomas said:


> I assume the result would have been the same if he was travelling at a sensible speed and didn't overtake, unsafely?



That would entirely depend on whether the Astra decided to move out as he was coming past. It is customary to indicate your intention when overtaking a slower moving vehicle if your actions put you into a space which is likely to be occupied by a car coming in the other direction, or that of a vehicle which is already overtaking you.


----------



## thomas (12 Jun 2009)

very-near said:


> That would entirely depend on whether the Astra decided to move out as he was coming past. It is customary to indicate your intention when overtaking a slower moving vehicle if your actions put you into a space which is likely to be occupied by a car coming in the other direction, or that of a vehicle which is already overtaking you.



My point was, hatchings generally indicate hazards so you shouldn't overtake. If it was a tractor or something, fair enough, but I bet the cars were doing the speed limit, so there was no need to overtake.



> If the biker wasn't at a ridiculous speed and clearly performing for the camera, he'd still be alive.
> 
> It's as simple as that.



+1


----------



## Crankarm (12 Jun 2009)

very-near said:


> Crankarm said:
> 
> 
> > In my opinion shouldn't be allowed to a ride rocking horse let alone a high powered motor bike. *The more that come a cropper the better*
> ...



You have indeed been very selective only quoting what suits you. You have selectively omitted the first part which is crucial.



Crankarm said:


> ......but there are a few who are total nutters who scare the sh1t out of me. In my opinion (they) shouldn't be allowed to a ride rocking horse let alone a high powered motor bike. The more that come a cropper the better. I just hope they don't take anyone with them who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.





very-near said:


> I am not absolving the biker of his actions - he paid the ultimate price,


He was the author of his own demise.




very-near said:


> but I am merely trying to draw a more balanced viewpoint given the limited information available.


Are you?



very-near said:


> The bikers actions alone were clearly not the reason why he ended up under the wheels of the camper van.



They were indeed. Had he been riding responsibly he would have been able to anticipate the situation infront and take evasive action. How can he do this travelling 86mph over the speed limit on a motorbike? Perhaps you would like to enlighten us? The court seem to have taken the same view.


----------



## marinyork (12 Jun 2009)

thomas said:


> My point was, hatchings generally indicate hazards so you shouldn't overtake. If it was a tractor or something, fair enough, but I bet the cars were doing the speed limit, so there was no need to overtake.



The bike did actually need to overtake the astra to avoid a crash whereas I'm guessing the astra didn't actually need to overtake the other car at all and it wasn't safe for it to do so. If the astra wasn't there the bike could have fully legally overtaken the other car (minus the 100+ mph) bit. Whereas the astra didn't fully legally overtake the other car. The astra's maneuver might be regarded as a minor thing, naughty but harmless as most people get away with it, the astra driver didn't and should really be getting a punishment for it.


----------



## very-near (12 Jun 2009)

Crankarm said:


> You have indeed been very selective only quoting what suits you. You have selectively omitted the first part which is crucial.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Given that the bike following was indicating 97mph prior to the overtake (allowing for speedo error about 87mph), and not 146mph as you seem to imply, I think your numbers are a bit off.

Were you not taught the drill 'mirror, signal, maneuver' when learning to drive as this bit clearly has passed the Astra driver bye.

The question being put is that the rider has already paid the ultimate price for his poor judgment - where does that leave the Astra driver as he clearly paid a part in the incident ?


----------



## thomas (12 Jun 2009)

marinyork said:


> The bike did actually need to overtake the astra to avoid a crash whereas I'm guessing the astra didn't actually need to overtake the other car at all and it wasn't safe for it to do so. If the astra wasn't there the bike could have fully legally overtaken the other car (minus the 100+ mph) bit. Whereas the astra didn't fully legally overtake the other car. The astra's maneuver might be regarded as a minor thing, naughty but harmless as most people get away with it, the astra driver didn't and should really be getting a punishment for it.



Why did the bike *need* to overtake anyone to begin with?

You can't just minus the speed. Assuming the cars were doing the speed limit there would be no need to overtake and it would not be safe!

I'm guessing you think the car didn't check their mirror properly? It might be seen as a minor thing but it had my Dad off his motorbike a few years back. It's a minor thing, but terrible results.


----------



## very-near (12 Jun 2009)

User3143 said:


> Bollox! Yet again you fail to realsie the part that speed plays in an incident.
> 
> Here's a question for you Linf - If the Biker had been travelling at the correct speed would He still be alive now?



If he had been travelling at the speed of the rest of the traffic, he wouldn't have been overtaking D'oh 

I am not excusing his speeding - he has already paid the ultimate price for his poor judgment.

Why not answer the question about the Astra driver who also chose to put himself in the middle of the road into the path of oncoming traffic, and did not check his mirror prior to this ?

Had the Astra stayed put, and used his observation before moving into the hatched area in the centre of the road (where the bikes already where), the biker wouldn't have ended up on the far side of the road under the wheels of the camper van.

I am not the only one putting the question so try and wind your spite and venom in for a minute will you Lee.


----------



## marinyork (12 Jun 2009)

thomas said:


> Why did the bike *need* to overtake anyone to begin with?
> 
> You can't just minus the speed. Assuming the cars were doing the speed limit there would be no need to overtake and it would not be safe!
> 
> I'm guessing you think the car didn't check their mirror properly? It might be seen as a minor thing but it had my Dad off his motorbike a few years back. It's a minor thing, but terrible results.



It's only a minor thing in that people say yeah that was a bit naughty but no one came to any harm. Well they did in this case. I've no idea whether the astra driver checked their mirrors or not. If people want to take such risks, that's upto them but as I say time and time again if it doesn't work out it's their fault and they should take a punishment. One motorbiker died, the other has been banned and received a suspended prison sentence. 

As for the speed, this is perfectly true, there wasn't any need to do it. However I'm talking about in the moments leading upto the impact. When you've got there and some moron pulls out (which is what we're guessing is what happened) you have much more limited options. That's what we're talking about and in the accident sense the astra driver has a lot to answer for. It's also a reason why you shouldn't speed. It's also however why you shouldn't do dangerous overtakes when someone else is trying the same.

One of the problems with this forum is that some people on this forum seem to like disecting gruesome accidents and want to judge it in a very black and white view. Ooh he was a speeding motorbiker, that's 100% his fault, oh it was a bus driver, clearly he's a hero and no fault can be apportioned, oh that HGV was in a cycle lane and cycle lanes are crap and that cyclist was using it, it's totally the cyclist's fault.


----------



## marinyork (12 Jun 2009)

> The bike did actually need to slow down to avoid a crash. His wreckless riding had committed him to the collision.



I'm guessing that by that time it was far, far too late.

If we take the motorbike out of it for a second and replace it with a car. In those circumstances it'd take on the classic overtake on a fast single lane carriageway and the police would have done all three vehicles including the astra.


----------



## marinyork (12 Jun 2009)

The driver of the astra for doing a dangerous overtake and causing death by careless or dangerous driving (it might be dropped and he'd get some other punishment). The driver of the front motorbike which in that case would be a car and assuming say one of his passengers died and they survived (not totally unrealistic), causing death by dangerous driving. The car behind would get done for speeding and overtaking dangerously if there was the evidence, which is more theoretical. There is no evidence to suggest that the camper van was in anyway responsible. With a car though it's also possible that there may be serious injuries or death for people in the camper van .

If you replace cars by motorbikes it takes on the rather sad sort of case we do hear about on A roads where 1 or 2 cars were supposedly overtaking on a single lane fast moving A road and multiple deaths have occured. That we know that the bikers were extremely reckless and doing speeds much higher and arrogant enough to film it doesn't detract from the tragedy or that it was slightly more complicated than "some nutcase on a motorbike kills himself".


----------



## marinyork (12 Jun 2009)

Yeap. 

If the astra driver hadn't pulled out the motorcyclist would still be alive until a couple of miles down the road where some other predictable and equally gruesome fate might of awaited. The actual accident does seem to partially be the astra's fault though.


----------



## very-near (12 Jun 2009)

User3143 said:


> No they wouldn't have, the rider was doing near enough 90mph close to 100mph if you take into account the margin of error.
> 
> It's very hard to make a judgement of the POV of the Astre driver becuase of the speed at which the Biker was going.
> 
> The Astra had their indicator on and the rider started to slow down, if he would not have been going at such an insane SPEED then he would still be alive.



If the traffic was already doing 60mph, and the Astra was doing 70mph, maybe even 75mph or 80mph given the distance it had to complete the maneuver safely, the disparity between the Astra and the bike isn't that great to scrub off given the braking power of the bike. The likelihood is that the Astra pushing into the path of the bike as it came past was that which caused them both to collide.

This is borne out in the lower speed of 78mph indicated on the camera in the 2nd frame which is only 4 seconds apart between the bike being behind the Astra and colliding with the Camper.


----------



## thomas (12 Jun 2009)

http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/hom...alks-free/article-1071747-detail/article.html


skip to end for crash. I'll have a better look later and give opinions.


----------



## 02GF74 (12 Jun 2009)

astra pulled out without looking in mirrors I'll bet. dpeed could have been anything between 80 and 100 mph, not outrageous.


----------



## CotterPin (12 Jun 2009)

What Marin says. Having watched the video (a rather gruesome experience) from Thomas' link, if it hadn't been the van it would have been something else somewhere down the road. The motorcyclist clearly thought that everybody else would behave themselves and he would have a clear run. 

It puts me in mind of those bike courier videos where the cyclists go hurtling along through red lights, through closing gaps between motor vehicles, the wrong way up one way streets and so on. They, too, are relying on everything else working for them and nothing going wrong.

This video tragically shows what happens when you live by such assumptions. The motorcyclist thought that nothing would obstruct him. It did. 

This is why we have these endless and passionate debates about speeding on this forum. Because some of us here recognise in fact that something could go wrong - the van could pull out unexpectedly, there could be something round the corner. Unfortunately there are some other people on this forum who somehow cannot countenance this. 

Even now one of them is in self-denial trying to pass the blame onto the driver of the Astra. No - the motorcyclist died because he was going too fast... END OF STORY


----------



## very-near (12 Jun 2009)

The Astra wasn't traveling a great deal slower than the bike when it pulled across the bikes path from the vid prior to the impact.


----------



## Bman (12 Jun 2009)

Well done for finding the full vid Thomas



Bongman said:


> ...
> I think the (driver of the) black car started an overtake at the same time as the motorcyclist was trying the same thing. The motorcyclist had no time to react due to excessive speed. The rest we can work out ourselves.



Rather disturbing description of the aftermath in that article though


----------



## thomas (12 Jun 2009)

Bongman said:


> Well done for finding the full vid Thomas



Well, i got fed up off "well, from 2 still photos I can tell that it's astra's fault...". It was just a quick search but I didn't expect to find it.

The astra does seem to indicate. Other than that I still need a better look.


----------



## very-near (12 Jun 2009)

CotterPin said:


> What Marin says. Having watched the video (a rather gruesome experience) from Thomas' link, if it hadn't been the van it would have been something else somewhere down the road. The motorcyclist clearly thought that everybody else would behave themselves and he would have a clear run.
> 
> It puts me in mind of those bike courier videos where the cyclists go hurtling along through red lights, through closing gaps between motor vehicles, the wrong way up one way streets and so on. They, too, are relying on everything else working for them and nothing going wrong.
> 
> ...



You are right, but had the speeds been slower, and relative to each other, the bike had clipped the car in the same manner, it would still have ended up in the biker being pitched off.

When 2 cars collide like that, they go bumper to bumper and this isn't a massive issue normally (just a shunt). When a bike strikes an object, the first thing to connect is the front wheel which then creates steering input changing the direction of the bike away from whichever path the force is applied from - if this makes sense. 

If the biker was run over by a camper van being driven at 50 mph, and the biker was only doing 30mph when he got pitched off, what is the chance of surviving a 4 tonne vehicle running over him at 50mph going to be - slim to bugger all.


----------



## johnnyh (12 Jun 2009)

I can have absolutely no sympathy, totally stupid and dangerous use of the roads. One less lunatic in the world.


----------



## very-near (12 Jun 2009)

User3143 said:


> The bike could have avoided the Astra.



He could have avoided the camper as well if he had bounced to the gutter before their paths crossed.

I am not defending his actions, he has already paid the price for them.

The Astra must share some of it though because his were the actions of undue care and attention IMO.


----------



## CotterPin (12 Jun 2009)

The actions of the Astra driver was a moment's thoughtlessness. The actions of the motorcyclist were deliberate, calculated and sustained over a long period of time.


----------



## very-near (12 Jun 2009)

User3143 said:


> They were not, feel free to write to Devon & Cornwall Police though Linf.



No level of fine can change what has happened. I expect they feel guilty as hell for their part in it.


----------



## very-near (12 Jun 2009)

CotterPin said:


> The actions of the Astra driver was a moment's thoughtlessness. The actions of the motorcyclist were deliberate, calculated and sustained over a long period of time.



It only took a moment of thoughtlessness by the driver of the car which took my mate out to change his life forever. That is all that is needed.


----------



## thomas (12 Jun 2009)

very-near said:


> No level of fine can change what has happened. I expect they feel guilty as hell for their part in it.



If you're blaming the Astra then, maybe they shouldn't be on that roads...or need to retake their test. It's not all about feeling bad.


----------



## very-near (12 Jun 2009)

thomas said:


> If you're blaming the Astra then, maybe they shouldn't be on that roads...or need to retake their test. It's not all about feeling bad.



I think if blame is to be apportioned (as the courts have, they should examine all of the participants of the incident before pressing charges)


----------



## skwerl (12 Jun 2009)

User3143 said:


> They were not, feel free to write to Devon & Cornwall Police though Linf.



why not? there's no overtaking on that stretch of road. he overtook another car so therefore is driving with undue care and consideration


----------



## thomas (12 Jun 2009)

skwerl said:


> why not? there's no overtaking on that stretch of road. he overtook another car so therefore is driving with undue care and consideration



Where did it say no overtaking?


----------



## Crankarm (12 Jun 2009)

I've watched the whole thing thanks to thomas for posting. These bikers are lunatics. They were road racing. They rode through the road works with a 50mph limit at the start at 79-80 mph. At one point the following bike reached 172mph!!! on a public road. The biker who was killed was an idiot. As already said by others and myself one less lunatic on the road. What hope had the Astra driver or any other car with a high powered sports bike approaching at such speed and quick acceleration from behind? The deceased biker rode straight into the back of the overtaking car on the wrong side of the carriageway resulting him going under the camper van. Had he hung back and waited rather than overtaking with on coming traffic approaching at such an insane speed then he might still be alive. But probably only to do something similar further down the road. The footage also showed that the following camera bike was also overtaking dangerously into oncoming traffic as well on a twisty single lane each way carriageway. Think of all those drivers that must have nearly shat themselves as they squeezed their cars to the side of the road to make room to avoid them. Had a cyclist been on the road at these points then they would have been crushed. The surviving following biker should have his machine crushed and banned for at least 10 years or a life time ban. They are absolute menaces and are typical of the biker nutters I mean. Thoughtless, selfish and arrogant barstewards.


----------



## CotterPin (12 Jun 2009)

very-near said:


> It only took a moment of thoughtlessness by the driver of the car which took my mate out to change his life forever. That is all that is needed.



I don't know about your mate but in this instance the motorcyclist had made a conscious decision to travel at speed for some distance. There is a world of difference between someone on the spur of the moment thinking "I'll pull out now" and someone deciding to drive their vehicle at excessive speed for a lengthy period of time


----------



## skwerl (12 Jun 2009)

thomas said:


> Where did it say no overtaking?



the diagonal lines in the middle of the road:

HC rule 130

Areas of white diagonal stripes or chevrons painted on the road. These are to separate traffic lanes or to protect traffic turning right.

if the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so
if the area is marked with chevrons and bordered by solid white lines you *MUST NOT* enter it except in an emergency


----------



## garrilla (12 Jun 2009)

Crankarm said:


> I've watched the whole thing thanks to thomas for posting. These bikers are lunatics. They were road racing. They rode through the road works with a 50mph limit at the start at 79-80 mph. At one point the following bike reached 172mph!!! on a public road. The biker who was killed was an idiot. As already said by others and myself one less lunatic on the road. What hope had the Astra driver or any other car with a high powered sports bike approaching at such speed and quick acceleration from behind? *The deceased biker rode straight into the back of the overtaking car on the wrong side of the carriageway resulting him going under the camper van.* Had he hung back and waited rather than overtaking with on coming traffic approaching at such an insane speed then he might still be alive. But probably only to do something similar further down the road. The footage also showed following bike was overtaking into oncoming traffic as well. Think of all those drivers that must have nearly shat themselves as they squeezed their cars to the side of the road to make room to avoid them. Had a cyclist been on the road at these points then they would have been crushed. The following biker should have his machine crushed and banned for at least 10 years or a life time ban. They are absolute menaces and are typical of the biker nutters I mean. Thoughtless, selfish and arrogant barstewards.



and thus the butterfly flapped its wings
and without a bye or second thought,
it left without
a 
trace
but in its place
a
trail
of devestatation in its wake


----------



## mangaman (12 Jun 2009)

The Astra driver appeared to be an impatient driver overtaking unnecessarily, but there appeared to be room for his overtake. 

The overtake was poorly judged, like so many speeding drivers, but not illegal

The bikers on the other hand....

He even overtook a car that seemed to have pulled over to let an ambulance past at about 4 minutes into the video.

The bbc video showed wide dual carriage ways
The fatal crash was only a really busy road just after a roundabout.

Gobsmacking


----------



## mangaman (12 Jun 2009)

skwerl said:


> the diagonal lines in the middle of the road:
> 
> HC rule 130
> 
> ...



True

The area where the crash occured was bordered by a broken white line

As I said the Astra should not have overtaken there, but overtaking at that point is not illegal


----------



## CotterPin (12 Jun 2009)

The most graphic part of the video for me is when the two riders are close together on the roundabout before the final (for one of them) stretch of road. At that point they speed is down to around 20 mph. If that man had made a conscious decision at that point to stay within the speed limit after he left the roundabout...


----------



## thomas (12 Jun 2009)

skwerl said:


> the diagonal lines in the middle of the road:
> 
> HC rule 130
> 
> ...



It didn't have a solid white line...and it doesn't say you can't overtake....which was more my picky point.

btw...this guy has been done for speeding before too...

http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/hom...ing-170mph/article-695012-detail/article.html


----------



## Crankarm (12 Jun 2009)

thomas said:


> It didn't have a solid white line...and it doesn't say you can't overtake....which was more my picky point.
> 
> btw...this guy has been done for speeding before too...
> 
> http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/hom...ing-170mph/article-695012-detail/article.html



Think of all the other times they probably caused mayhem, alarm and fear on the roads and weren't caught. Even though they had both been caught speeding excessively before. The 2 year suspended sentence handed to Bowden is a joke only granted as the family of the deceased claimed that they were both very good friends and had ridden a lot together. Ironically the family of the deceased rider said he would have done anything for anyone. Indeed they always do.

If you freeze frame the footage the Astra car that was overtaking in front of the biker was well established in the over taking position when the biker made contact with the rear of the vehicle. When the car signals and begins to manoevre to overtake the vehicle in front of him the bike rider has plenty of time to brake and slow down. I think he didn't see him as he was focusing on the on coming traffic or was just accelerating so fast he could not stop. In any event his riding was extremely dangerous and pre-meditated.

As it's going to be a nice weekend for cycling no doubt there will also be loads of bikers on the roads. Let's hope those that are nutters learn by these bikers' mistakes and ride responsibly.


----------



## thomas (12 Jun 2009)

Crankarm said:


> Think of all the other times they probably caused mayhem, alarm and fear on the roads and weren't caught. Even though they had both been caught speeding excessively before. The 2 year suspended sentence handed to Bowden is a joke only granted as the family of the deceased claimed that they were both very good friends and had ridden a lot together. *Ironically the family of the deceased rider said he would have done anything for anyone*. Indeed they always do.




Would he wait patiently for anyone? Speeding punishments in these cases are always going to be a slap on the wrist...maybe his friend has taught him an invaluable lesson!


----------



## very-near (12 Jun 2009)

thomas said:


> Would he wait patiently for anyone? Speeding punishments in these cases are always going to be a slap on the wrist...maybe his friend has taught him an invaluable lesson!



Like don't film yourself acting illegally on the road ?


----------



## thomas (12 Jun 2009)

very-near said:


> Like don't film yourself acting illegally on the road ?



Well, hopefully stop riding like a dick head.


----------



## Crankarm (12 Jun 2009)

very-near said:


> Like don't film yourself acting illegally on the road ?



Or post your views on a biker forum where they would be in similarly ignorant company.


----------



## marinyork (12 Jun 2009)

I find it disturbing that out of three idiots, one is still out on the roads and the other has a ten year ban, if he even keeps to it.


----------



## very-near (12 Jun 2009)

thomas said:


> Well, hopefully stop riding like a dick head.



The ban should take care of that.


----------



## MartinC (12 Jun 2009)

Crankarm said:


> If you freeze frame the footage the Astra car that was overtaking in front of the biker was well established in the over taking position when the biker made contact with the rear of the vehicle. When the car signals and begins to manoevre to overtake the vehicle in front of him the bike rider has plenty of time to brake and slow down. I think he didn't see him as he was focusing on the on coming traffic or was just accelerating so fast he could not stop. In any event his riding was extremely dangerous and pre-meditated.



Crankarm is right, this is the key point. When the Astra began its overtake the bike was still behind the car behind the Astra. At the Mirror part of a MSM sequence the bike would not have been in the picture. The situation was developing and predictable before the biker put himself in it. Entirely his fault. End of story. Literally.


----------



## marinyork (12 Jun 2009)

If the bike had its lights on the astra driver should have spotted the bike. If it didn't I perhaps could understand the poor judgement of the astra driver. Still should have spotted him though.


----------



## thomas (12 Jun 2009)

marinyork said:


> If the bike had its lights on the astra driver should have spotted the bike. If it didn't I perhaps could understand the poor judgement of the astra driver. Still should have spotted him though.



I thought mbikes had their lights on all the time...or at least with modern bikes you couldn't turn them off.


----------



## marinyork (12 Jun 2009)

Anyway the sad bit of that video for me was just when they get to the roundabout and are driving vaguely sanely and then Prowse sneaks ahead to give it a final blast.


----------



## MartinC (12 Jun 2009)

marinyork said:


> If the bike had its lights on the astra driver should have spotted the bike. If it didn't I perhaps could understand the poor judgement of the astra driver. Still should have spotted him though.



Spotting the prescence of the bike isn't enough. The Astra driver would have also had to be aware thet he intended to overtake. Not something easy to predict when the bike is not even yet behind you in the traffic stream, isn't indicating and about to accelerate to an inappropriate speed. The Astra driver may well have checked that the car behind wasn't about to overtake. As others have said - the Astra had started it's overtake way before the biker was committed to going past.


----------



## Arch (12 Jun 2009)

> We were on holiday in Cornwall that week, staying not far away. We heard that the road had been closed. I'm glad that I wasn't unfortunate enough to have driven the family past a collection of body parts on the road.



I wouldn't wish it on your lot, but maybe more people should be exposed to body parts on the road. I really think a lot of people simply don't equate their actions with accurate results.

When I was about 7 or 8, I remember Mum and I walked past a local school and a girl had run out in front of a car, and was still lying in the road out cold, surrounded by people, waiting for an ambulance. It's an image I cn conjour up now.

Friend's have said, I'm the only person they know in their 30's who still follows the Green Cross Code...

Putting aside the why and wherefore of blame for a moment, I noticed this in the report:

"The prison sentence was suspended after the dead man's family asked the court to show lenience because he and Bowden had been close friends."

This, I don't get. So, the guy lost his buddy, and saw it happen. That doesn't make him any less guilty of being a twat for speeding like that. Did the court take into account the feelings of the people in the camper van? Not to mention anyone else who might have got killed if they'd carried on like that. I didn't think sentencing was about learning a leson, - he's hopefully done that. Isn't there also an element of punishment, which he seems to have avoided (I know he'll have other punishments, but he's avoided the prison bit).

I'm afraid I'm with the 'better off out of the gene pool' camp - the only pity being they have to wreck other people's lives along the way.


----------



## asterix (12 Jun 2009)

Even looking ahead the human vision is very poor at judging the speed of approaching objects. Looking in a mirror simply makes it harder to do so especially with a small object like a m/cycle. 

IME it is commonplace for vehicles on multi-lane roads to pull into a lane in front of an oncoming faster vehicle, especially for HGVs to do so. Good driving is being prepared for that and being able to deal with it.

Any motorcyclist who depends on other drivers to keep them out of trouble in such a way is very likely to die. They are also quite likely to take others with them.


----------



## marinyork (12 Jun 2009)

> That's an appalling piece of film, both in terms of the outcome, but also the speed.
> 
> What is clear is that the Astra was clearly moving to the right when the bike was a reasonable distance behind it. The bike approached quickly, so the speed differential was significant. He'd just undertaken his mate and dived to the right while accelerating. The following bike was braking heavily from 100mph when the previously discussed still was taken, so that's the kind of speed that the first bike was doing immmediately prior to the impact. It's awful, pathetic, dangerous riding.
> 
> Earlier on he was passing cars at an indicated 170mph. If one of these cars had moved right, would they have been partly to blame for being rear-ended? Where in the HC does it say that drivers should always consider and account for someone who might be approaching at up to a 100mph speed differential?



170mph is different from a 90-100mph for spotting someone in the mirror. At those sort of speeds it would be extremely difficult to spot, even were they driving on a wide 2 lane dual carriageway and the car pulled legitimately into the other lane. That's totally different from this set of circumstances. I don't frankly understand what people are on about, I've had motorbikes and other cars pull such moves on me undertaking/overtaking on slip roads them doing 90-100mph me doing 60-70 mph. I don't bloody well pull out like that astra. So the astra used it's indicator, it doesn't excuse the fact that it attempted an overtake where it shouldn't have. The hatch markings are their for a reason. Don't overtake unless it is necessary and safe! It wasn't necessary or safe for either of them. If they want to take a risk like that, fair dos, but due to the poor nature of the manuever and the road markings it's partly their fault and they should be doing a short stint in prison.


----------



## ferret fur (12 Jun 2009)

I'm sorry, but as an ex motorbike courier with 200k on the clock: You just cannot blame the Astra driver for his part in this tragedy. If you look carefully, the bike overtakes a car less than two seconds before the Astra begins his overtake. He could have quite easily have looked in his mirrors and seen nothing except the car behind and then concentrated on the overtake by looking ahead. He is even indicating for goodness sake! Granted it is a tight place for a car to overtake but I wouldn't say it was necessarily dangerous to do it. When you are on a motorbike you _have_ to take into account that you are accelerating at speeds and getting into positions that even cautious and sensible drivers (and there are darned few of those) will not be expecting. If as a biker you are going to accelerate rapidly out of a slow junction up to three figure speeds on a narrow road (given the circumstances) with heavy traffic, you are taking a huge risk. You shouldn't be relying on someone spotting you doing a foolhardy manoeuvre which a normal car driver can't really be expecting. By all means blame a driver if they aren't paying attention while you are ridng sensibly. If you are being an idiot you have only yourself to blame.


----------



## marinyork (12 Jun 2009)

It was dangerous for the astra to overtake as 
(a) they appeared to be tailgating another car 
( there were hatch markings 
(c) there was traffic coming in the other direction.
(d) there was someone behind already committed to an overtake, whether you think it reasonable they spotted them or not.


----------



## ferret fur (12 Jun 2009)

> It was dangerous for the astra to overtake as
> (a) they appeared to be tailgating another car
> ( there were hatch markings
> (c) there was traffic coming in the other direction.
> (d) there was someone behind already committed to an overtake, whether you think it reasonable they spotted them or not.


(a) I'd agree but it was not relevant to the accident
( Overtaking is still permissable with these markings. If it was dangerous to overtake in this area of road the markings would be solid.
(c) Probably agree but again not a cause of the accident
(d) It clearly was dangerous because someone died, but that doesn't make them culpable for that. If you are going to blame them, especially in terms of gaining a conviction, you'd have to show that it was reasonable for them to have seen the bike.

Let's face it as cyclists we face people doing far worse than the Astra on a daily/hourly/minutely? basis & there is no suggestion that these people ever get done. Just because some poor b*gger paid for it with his life doesn't make the Astra more culpable. I'll repeat, my sympathies lie naturally with the two wheeled fraternity, but the bulk of the blame here is almost entriely with the guy who sadly died.


----------



## marinyork (12 Jun 2009)

On ( you're quite wrong. As this had been brought up a second time I will go into it.

The highway code operates on a hierarchy from MUST NOT that is specified in law and should not and do not down to just advice on best ways of doing things. A solid white line with hatch markings means they MUST NOT overtake. Should not is 2nd or 3rd in the pecking order. It's not a I'd really rather you didn't. People here are awfully good at appealing to "direct law" and then saying they weren't breaking that so they're all right. There are many things in the highway code that say should not or do not that could get people killed that'll get you points right through to long prison sentences. The car really should not have been overtaking, it is how it is. The hatch markings are literally there for that reason. The other thing I would say is that some people perhaps have problems judging speed and things in mirrors. That's fine and quite a few people are like that. It just means you shouldn't be engaging in risky overtakes and the resulting predictable accident. Wait.

I really wish people would move beyond the simplified view on here we have of blaming one party. I am a believer that it often takes two things to create an accident, this being no different. Richter 9 recklessness doesn't make richter 5 or 6 recklessness all right. They are both wrong.


----------



## shunter (12 Jun 2009)

As a motorcyclist I find it hard to understand why other motorcyclists travel at these excessive speeds on the public highway. Once started I would imagine it would be very difficult for the motorcyclist to get back down to normal speeds due to the adrenalin rush. A race track is the proper location for this type of action. 

I use the superior acceleration of my motorcycles to get away from cars at junctions and up to a safe speed away from them.

The driver of the astra 'may' be at fault to a degree as his signal, manouver procedure did not pick up the motorcyclist in his rear but to be honest probably 90% of drivers would not have either and they would not be tuned in to expecting the unexpected. 

A motorcyclist on the other hand *has* to develope the skills of looking for the unexpected as his life is more at risk if e.g. if a car changes direction without signaling or does a unexpected U-turn. 

Speeding at 150mph on a motorway with no traffic around is less risky although any motorcyclist must take on board that a blowout or engine failure could have fatal consequences. Where there is more traffic on the roads then a motorcyclist must accept his reponsibilty to not endanger other motorists lives if he takes risks. The motorcyclist in this case gave no regard to to other road users - his crashing bike could have killed another car driver. 

His failure to appreciate the vunerability of his own life on the road and his selfishness in disregarding the effect of his death on his relations, friends and innocent road users means that his has left behind a mess for others to clear up.

I would have no problem in banning his friend for life from riding motorcycles as his participation as cameraman in this escapade has only encouraged his own friend to show off.


----------



## ferret fur (12 Jun 2009)

Marinyork, I'm not saying you are entirely wrong, but don't forget that the HC says you *should* wear high viz & cycle helmets.

If the Astra had overtaken on the hatches and hit a bike coming the other way, (or the camper van) then I would say that the HC could be used to add to his culpability but in terms of this crash, I'm just not sure what relevance the hatched markings have. Look, I'm not saying it is a great piece of driving by the Astra, in fact I would say that this is not a good place to overtake & he is clearly impatient, but to say as someone says above, that he should be imprisoned for his driving is way OTT. The reason why the Astra should not be overtaking at this juncture is not because of the risk of a bike doing a ton 300 yards after a roundabout. Ultimately, the speed with which the biker is overtaking and the circumstances in which he is doing it mean that the Astra, for all his faults, doesn't really, in my (motor)cyclist eyes bear that great a responsibilty for the actual crash itself.


----------



## marinyork (12 Jun 2009)

That's another misconception though, equating a should not or do not on an equal footing with should and do. They aren't the same thing at all. I understand why people in general get ratty about it as in general people prefer to ignore road markings.

People up and down the land get away with such things the difference here is there was an accident and we have video footage of them being naughty. That might seem harsh but that's how it is. I frequently have people overtake me on solid white lines. It doesn't mean it is right and if god forbid one of these vehicles hit an oncoming vehicle during such an overtake I'd hope they survived but when it came to the post crash analysis I'd basically say they crossed the line, their risk, their fault and there should be punishments handed out. I'm sure they'd not listen and walk scott free, but I'd still be right in saying it.



> There is no solid white line.



User you know very well there is a non-solid line and what that means. It means the astra should not have been doing what they did, even if there was a suicidal maniac behind them or not.


----------



## xpc316e (12 Jun 2009)

marinyork, when you say that people often overtake you where there are solid white lines, why shouldn't they (if you are cycling)?


----------



## thomas (12 Jun 2009)

ferret fur said:


> Marinyork, I'm not saying you are entirely wrong, but don't forget that the HC says you *should* wear high viz & cycle helmets.



Good point! I don't think anyone on here believes that people without crash helmets should be held partially to blame (or very few).

From what I can make out of the video, if the motorcyclist had not been driving at an excessive speed, gone to overtake slower moving cars and the astra went into him I would agree more with the arguments to blame the driver, or hold him partially responsible.

Now, from the motorcyclists past behaviour I do not think they were anticipating the movement of traffic or particularly cared when they saw the gap they could get through. I also believe that even with double checking a mirror the motorcyclist may not appear to be doing one hundred and silly mile per hour.

In the scheme of things it probably wasn't necessary for *anyone *to overtake along that stretch of the road. If I was the motorcyclist I wouldn't want to be overtaking that closely at speed.


----------



## Mr Celine (12 Jun 2009)

marinyork said:


> On ( you're quite wrong. As this had been brought up a second time I will go into it.
> 
> The highway code blah blah blah



The highway code is not a statement of the law. The law does not prohibit driving on hatched areas bounded by broken lines.


----------



## marinyork (12 Jun 2009)

Mr Celine said:


> The highway code is not a statement of the law. The law does not prohibit driving on hatched areas bounded by broken lines.



What part of should not do you not understand (same question to everybody else that thinks otherwise)? Also bother to read the whole of my post Mr Celine.


----------



## marinyork (12 Jun 2009)

> I know there's a white line. It's broken, not solid as you claim, and they mean different things.
> 
> See HC 127-131



I did not claim the line was solid and you know that. I've read the HC whereas you keep on ignoring the clear instructions. Should not is crystal clear. You are doing what I said above appealing to "direct" law when you know perfectly well that car should not have been there.



xpc316e said:


> marinyork, when you say that people often overtake you where there are solid white lines, why shouldn't they (if you are cycling)?



When I'm travelling above 10mph it's illegal to cross the line. Someone has painted white lines to tell people not to overtake (with provisions) and constructed a law to back this up. They are painted there because they are exceptionally dangerous places to attempt an overtake of any vehicle.


----------



## Mr Celine (12 Jun 2009)

marinyork said:


> What part of should not do you not understand (same question to everybody else that thinks otherwise)? Also bother to read the whole of my post Mr Celine.



I understand it all perfectly. What part of 'the highway code is not a statement of the law' do you not understand?


----------



## campbellab (12 Jun 2009)

XmisterIS said:


> That is awful.
> The Astra driver was an unobservant idiot, but then he probably didn't expect to have a nutcase biker trying to overtake him at 100+mph in traffic.



Who has priority when both people want to overtake the car infront on a single carriageway, the vehicle going the fastest, the vehicle being impeded the most, the vehicle infront or the vehicle behind? 

Anyway, to me it looks like the astra is indicating to overtake just before the bike overtook the vehicle behind it. There was 2 seconds on the video between overtaking the last vehicle and clipping the astra... The biker overtook 3 cars in 5 seconds no-wonder he wasn't seen! 

http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/hom...mph-biker/article-1070138-detail/article.html


----------



## marinyork (12 Jun 2009)

> The definitions of 'must' and 'should' are specific terms in law, apply and mean the same over the whole of the legal system, and are very clear.
> 
> 'Should' is not a command, it's a recommendation.
> 
> ...



I've already covered these points. You know very well the question asked specifically about solid white lines and I answered in that respect so your points are not needed.


----------



## marinyork (12 Jun 2009)

Mr Celine said:


> I understand it all perfectly. What part of 'the highway code is not a statement of the law' do you not understand?



What part of if you have an accident and the highway code is used as a guide of culpability do you not understand?


----------



## Proto (12 Jun 2009)

Any motorcyclist will tell you that you have to treat every car driver as if they are very likely to do something stupid. This fellow must have forgotten that lesson. Some blame may be attributable to the Astra driver, but not very much. The speed difference between the Astra and the bike may only have been 15 or 29 mile an hour, but enough to remove from the biker and margin for error and he paid a horrendous price. His fault. End of.

I'm a habitual speeder myself, on bike (Fireblade) and car, it's a matter of time and place. Busy, fast single carriage way is never the right place, but there are miles and miles of roads here in Oxfordshire that are stupidly restricted to 50 mph, and I'm not ashamed to say that I ignore the speed limits on those.


----------



## thomas (12 Jun 2009)

talking about hatchings. I swear loads of people don't understand them. If they turn onto a road with them they cut across them - scared of just following it round and then going to the inside lane once you've actually made it around the corner.

It does really annoy me (well, it doesn't really), but it slows me down by like 2 seconds about half a mile from work as the dippy drivers stop and then cut across them, rather than just going around the corner and pulling into the other lane on the straight.



Proto said:


> I'm a habitual speeder myself, on bike (Fireblade) and car, it's a matter of time and place. Busy, fast single carriage way is never the right place, but there are miles and miles of roads here in Oxfordshire that are stupidly restricted to 50 mph, and I'm not ashamed to say that I ignore the speed limits on those.



I'd agree that speeding isn't a bad thing or that dangerous. It depends when, where and how. Some roads around me are stupidly restricted, just because some moron boy racer drove his car into a wall at 90mph they make it 30, when 40 would be perfectly safe (it isn't right next to houses or anything like that either).


----------



## marinyork (12 Jun 2009)

I think that's true of lines in general Thomas .


----------



## Crankarm (12 Jun 2009)

Have watched the footage a few more times on freeze frame and the motorcyclist definitely rides into the rear of the car striking the rear corner. The Astra was no way at fault. It is irrelevant whether the Astra straddles or drives over the hatchings which if broken he can do. The biker was behind him and failed to keep sufficient look out, failed to anticipate and failed to exercise reasonable care. The Astra appears to indicate before he pulls out to pass the silver car in front of him which was slowing and keeping very close to the nearside. At 4'26" seconds the motorbike's brake light comes on. He is still behind the Astra car with some margin between them and in line with the middle of it. So he has slowed. Brake light then goes off and he then appears to try to ride around the Astra car whose off side wheels are just on or straddling the broken white lines of the edge of the hatching in the middle of the carriageway. The motorbike is extremely close to the back of this car. He must have only been a couple of feet as he moves to the right to try to ride around it but the car moves a couple of feet to the right to give more room to the silver car on the nearside it is passing. No brake light shows on the motorbike so he didn’t brake. The motorcyclist has committed himself to passing the Astra so must be accelerating hard to try to pass but sees oncoming camper vans and collides with rear offside corner of the Astra. No brake light showing so he must have ridden with power into the back offside corner/quarter of the Astra causing his bike to travel onto the other side of the road into the path of the oncoming camper van.

It is difficult to see whether there is a nearside lane as there might be a broken white line on the nearside of the carriageway or alternatively a fault with the footage or a filter lane to leave this road or a parking area. Although previously there are no road signs or road markings to indicate parking lay by, dual carriageway or exit slip. The only sign is a white circular with diagonal black line national speed limit sign indicating 60mph max on the left having just joined the road from exiting the roundabout. The following bike’s speedo shows the speed prior to collision of 100 or maybe 108mph. It's a 60mph speed limit remember. The Astra couldn't have been doing more than 50-60 mph maybe not even as much as this. The cars following on the nearside are all aware of the bikers presence as they keep close to the nearside and are well spaced.

The motorcyclist just made a monumental bad error of judgement . It is a miracle that no one else was injured or killed. Given his prediliction for speed and taking risks he was an accident waiting to happen. A contender for a Darwin Award me thinks.


----------



## Proto (13 Jun 2009)

I haven't watched the video, but are we now suggesting that the collision occured not because of excessive speed but because of very poor riding skills?


----------



## Crankarm (13 Jun 2009)

It would appear so. Watch the video "frame by frame" from them exiting the roundabout or use play/pause/play/pause really quickly.


----------



## marinyork (13 Jun 2009)

I refer people to post #58.


----------



## MacB (13 Jun 2009)

Many of us may not have chosen to overtake as the Astra did but there was no infringement in law by the driver. Both bikes accelerated extremely rapidly from the roundabout and seemed focused on getting ahead rather than reading the road. Any experienced road user on here would have been able to anticipate the move from the Astra. Had they not been 'high' on speed and adrenalin the bikers would have anticipated it as well. 

Saying the Astra driver should share blame, or be prosecuted, indicates that they behaved in an unreasonable or unsafe manner. I would of said most of us would have failed to see/anticipate the bike in that situation. Whether we would have made the overtake is immaterial.


----------



## campbellab (13 Jun 2009)

MacBludgeon said:


> Saying the Astra driver should share blame, or be prosecuted, indicates that they behaved in an unreasonable or unsafe manner.



Unfortunatly they did act in an unsafe manner you can see that from the results. 

Was it an unreasonable maneuvre? 
I think it was unreasonable to overtake with oncoming traffic on hatched seperating lines unless the car infront was well below the speed limit or stopping. 

Was it an illegal maneuvre? No

Do I think they could have reasonably seen the motorbike when attemping the maneuvre (including mirror/signal/man)? No

Do I think they reasonably could have judged the speed of the bike had they seen it? No

Did the driver think it was safe to move out? Yes 

Would it have been safe to move out without the biker there? Most probably

Do I think the Astra driver should be prosecuted? Even with my first statements? Hell no, if he was overtaking a tractor the majority of drivers would have done the same thing with an identical outcome.


----------



## Mr Celine (13 Jun 2009)

marinyork said:


> What part of if you have an accident and the highway code is used as a guide of culpability do you not understand?



I don't understand any of that.

IF the crash had been caused by the Astra then the guidance in the highway code could have been used to help decide if its driver had driven carelessly or dangerously. But as the crash was so obviously entirely the fault of the numpty riding the bike the question doesn't arise.


----------



## asterix (13 Jun 2009)

very-near said:


> As for your 'all bikers who break the speed limit deserve to die' attitude, i'm really trying to figure out if you are just a keyboard warrior, a total twat, or both![/B]




Linfordlunchbox, or LLB or Linf or very-near or whatever your next identity becomes, having read the posts of the person you are abusing I'd suggest that they are useful and legitimate posters on this forum. You on the other hand use this forum purely and simply to push your own propaganda about topics that have very little to do with cycling.

If anyone is what you describe as a 'keyboard warrior' and/or 'total twat' I'd say you are by far the best candidate.


----------



## johnnyh (13 Jun 2009)

Crankarm said:


> A contender for a Darwin Award me thinks.



sums it up nicely.


----------



## thomas (13 Jun 2009)

> We're going to have to disagree. The difference between your "the car should not have been overtaking there", and the HC's use of the word is subtle but very significant.



The other point is, the driver didn't cross over into the other lane. The car in front of the astra had pulled into the kerb which is a suggestion that the car behind may overtake. I don't think the Astra did a dangerous manoeuvre.



Proto said:


> I haven't watched the video, but are we now suggesting that the collision occured not because of excessive speed but because of very poor riding skills?



I think a combination of the two. From their past behaviour I have little sympathy. I think the speed showed poor riding skills. If the bikes hadn't been passing so close, so fast then they would have had more time to react. I'd when i drove I was always quite aware on the roads and when there were motorbikes behind (however far behind) I would make sure not to overtake/move further out in the lane if I didn't know where they were. If however, the motorbike was excessively speeding I may never of had a chance to see them or prepare for them.




MacBludgeon said:


> Many of us may not have chosen to overtake as the Astra did but there was no infringement in law by the driver.




+1...if you're going to fuss about the astra overtaking the same blame lies with the biker. Either all can overtake, or none. The motorbike may be able to *squeeze *past without crossing the lines, but this obviously wasn't safe.


----------



## Bigtwin (13 Jun 2009)

Well, I've been riding a motorbike almost daily for about 30 years. Done the advanced riding courses and all that stuff. And for what it's worth, here's my opinion.

When you ride, you know you are doing something dangerous. You know you have to anticipate, expect the unexpected, and think for everyone around you, as well as yourself. You know that minor errors and stupidity can have massive consequences. Also, anyone with a bit of experience and an IQ of 10+ knows broadly when they are riding safe, and riding stupid. You just do.

That is a classic, and tragic, but of riding like a complete idiot. Yes the Astra may have been a bit iffy, but it seems to me that the was well out before the bike hit him, there was time to avoid the situation, those bikes have excellent brakes, and sensible riding would have dealt with it. You don't overtake 3 abreast - it's totally unnecessary - on a bike like that, you hang back 10 secs, roll the throttle, and overtake fast and safe leaving plenty of room; job done safely.

If you want to ride at 150mph, go to a track and do it. Several time Word Champion Carl Foggarty was asked in an interview which bike he rode on the road. His answer? "A Volvo - it's too bloody dangerous".

We had a saying when I was a pilot - same goes for bikes: "There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots".

Tragically for all concerned, this has been proved true yet again.


----------



## cannondale boy (14 Jun 2009)

Anyone seen that advert on how you are meant to look out for bikers twice. But what happens if one is going over the speed limit? who is at fault the driver or the motorcyclist.

I know most bikers take great care when out and about, but you do get the few muppets that spoil it on our roads for everyone.


----------

