Thoughts on this?

[smokeysmoo]

IMO the accident was undoubtedly caused by the motorist, but the outcome was largely attributed to by the bikers speed.

It was an unfortunate case of fast risk taking and appalling driving.

 

[beanzontoast]

A lot of videos are forgettable. This is one of those that sticks with you. I cannot pretend to be clever enough to decide fault. All I can say is how terribly sad for all concerned.

 

[jefmcg]

I am a bit disturbed by the the mother's comments. She first calls on motorists to slow down, and says that her son didn't have time to react. But she never seems to think that maybe bikers should slow down, or that speed was one of the reasons her son had no time.

 

[cd365]

Didn't the car driver state that he didn't see the motorcyclist at all? He was obviously not paying attention to the road.
"She said that the driver - who has since admitted causing death by careless driving - did not see the motorcyclist"

 

[PK99]

Sometimes it is useful to imagine roles reversed:

If the Car had been doing 97mph and the bike had turned across, who would have been at fault?

??In that circumstance the driver would probably have been charged with causing death by Dangerous driving??

 

[jefmcg]

Didn't the car driver state that he didn't see the motorcyclist at all? He was obviously not paying attention to the road.
"She said that the driver - who has since admitted causing death by careless driving - did not see the motorcyclist"

I'm not sure about this. We can't see everything in a scene - our brains aren't capable of processing it all. When you are driving, you look for potential hazards. You ignore everything that isn't a potential hazard, without consulting your conscious brain. It seems quite possible to me that the driver dismissed a motorcycle that was too far away to reach him before he'd left the junction, the same way as he disregarded cars heading away from him, and vehicles in the far distance. And trees. And direction signs.

But if the driver thinks he should have seen the rider and didn't, and was prepared to own that in court, then I respect his honesty and have to assume he was responsible.

 

[dodgy]

I wonder if the motorcyclist had headlights on, as they often do, even in the daytime.

In any case, 80% motorcyclist, 20% driver imo. However, I haven't heard the case presented in a considered way, unlike the judge in a court of law.

 

[hoopdriver]

I keep going back in my mind to the 97mph. I did watch the video. He was going at scary speed and while the car shouldn't have turned, it is just one of those things you shoukd be expecting, or at least looking out for, if you are driving. Especially when you are a vulnerable road user.

97mph is just begging for trouble.

 

[G3CWI]

I was unsure what message the video was supposed to convey. At best it is a mixed message. It seems to me that both parties were in part to blame, but one died.

 

[Brandane]

I am a biker, and from my POV FWIW, I wouldn't have been doing anything near 97mph at that junction, especially on seeing a car taking up a position to turn right. On a motorbike, as on a bicycle, you are very vulnerable and you must assume that: a) You are invisible; and b) Every other road user has better things to do than actually pay attention to the task in hand. This video is proof of that theory.
The biker could see the car long before the junction and should have slowed down but obviously took the chance and assumed the car driver had seen him. If the bike rider could see the car, then why couldn't the car driver see the bike? Because he failed to look PROPERLY; or his ability to judge the speed of oncoming traffic is so seriously flawed that he shouldn't be on the road.

 

[hoopdriver]

I was unsure what message the video was supposed to convey. At best it is a mixed message. It seems to me that both parties were in part to blame, but one died.

Not a message so much as a visualisation. Seeing it brings alive the potential for disaster in a forceful and unforgettable way.

 

[Shaun]

We had two threads for this subject in the Cafe so I've merged them together (just in case anyone's wondering where the other one has gone).

 

[Milzy]

If you're going to ride like that it's only a matter of time until it happens. I've known too many people get killed on motorcycles. I think they should book some track days, speed & have relatively safe fun then go back home safe & happy.

 

[Drago]

I wonder if the motorcyclist had headlights on, as they often do, even in the daytime.

In any case, 80% motorcyclist, 20% driver imo. However, I haven't heard the case presented in a considered way, unlike the judge in a court of law.

interestingly, Suzuki did some research into day time headlamp use in the 1980s. Their tests showed that having the headlamp on broke up the outline of the bike and rider to an oncoming observer. The human brain calculates the speed of an oncoming object by the rate at which its size increases compared to it surroundings, and having the headlamp on compromised this.

So what did the unelected Autocrats do? They forced permanently 'on' headlamps onto New motorbikes. Was a very interesting article about this in Superbikes mag a while back.

 

[CopperBrompton]

There was an interesting research study done a few years ago that showed that a bike doesn't change the 'picture' people get of a road enough to stand out as a moving object. Gently weaving on the approach to a junction makes a dramatic difference to visibility.