Technically, the driver actually did, by crossing into the path of oncoming vehicles, but I don't think that he was the cause of the biker's death, and why I think the charge of causing death by careless driving was one he should have pleaded not guilty to. The biker's dangerous driving through excess speed caused his death. But of course, he's not around to prosecute, and somebody always has to carry the can these days.
There weren't any other vehicles... you are allowed to turn off or overtake, that's legal.
I think he was careless up to a point, because we are supposed to watch out for other speeding or drunk or careless motorists and pedestrians etc at all times.
But that really doesn't make it your fault.
I don't think he was causing the death by being careless, I think he got totally screwed.
There weren't any other vehicles... you are allowed to turn off or overtake, that's legal.
I think he was careless up to a point, because we are supposed to watch out for other speeding or drunk or careless motorists and pedestrians etc at all times.
But that really doesn't make it your fault.
I don't think he was causing the death by being careless, I think he got totally screwed.
My heart goes out to the mother and the motorist.
I agree. As road users we have an obligation to be aware of other road users, but I think it is a lot to ask of motorists to take responsibility for other people who drive dangerously or speed excessively as this biker was.
End of the day, the biker broke the law, the driver didn't.
Oh, right. I must have just dreamed that he'd been convicted of the criminal offence of causing a death by careless driving.
Pulling across a road, into the path of oncoming traffic, IS breaking a law.
I find it incredibly saddening that so many people here seem to think that it's okay to drive like a brainless zombie as long as the person you kill was speeding.
If this had happened at 60mph, and the biker had only received multiple broken bones or, perhaps, been paralysed would the driver still have been blameless?
If not then I don't really see how his burden of responsibility can be negated simply because the other person was doing something reckless as well.
This really SHOULDN'T be a "cars vs bikes" thing. It should be a case where ALL road users can learn from the mistakes of others.
So? He was arrogant for travelling at high speeds where there were cars around and there was a chance that a car would turn to the right. The driver's not innocent in all this either.
Yes he was arrogant, ignorant and selfish. The way he was was riding his bike indicates that he thought of no one but himself and thought that he was above the law.
I don't think anyone is saying the car driver was blameless BUT if the bike rider hadn't been going at approximately 40 mph OVER the speed limit, approaching the junction, it wouldn't have happened.
Fact is, he should not have been doing that speed on a public highway, EVER. The road could've been totally clear and he still shouldn't have been doing that speed. NO driver should drive at that speed on bikes or in cars. If they do then their actions are indefensable.
And before you say it, no I'm not a bike hater, I'm a selfish driver hater. My uncle is 58 today and has ridden huge bikes all his life without an accident (touch wood). He rides defensively, thinking ahead and always predicting what other drivers might do. It's not rocket science really.
Oh, right. I must have just dreamed that he'd been convicted of the criminal offence of causing a death by careless driving.
Pulling across a road, into the path of oncoming traffic, IS breaking a law.
I find it incredibly saddening that so many people here seem to think that it's okay to drive like a brainless zombie as long as the person you kill was speeding.
If this had happened at 60mph, and the biker had only received multiple broken bones or, perhaps, been paralysed would the driver still have been blameless?
If not then I don't really see how his burden of responsibility can be negated simply because the other person was doing something reckless as well.
This really SHOULDN'T be a "cars vs bikes" thing. It should be a case where ALL road users can learn from the mistakes of others.
The debate exists because a motorist has erred, but has been deemed to be the cause of death in criminal law. You have just reinforced the argument against that charge by stating that the biker might have lived had he been travelling at a lower speed. The rider caused his own death.
My uncle is 58 today and has ridden huge bikes all his life without an accident (touch wood). He rides defensively, thinking ahead and always predicting what other drivers might do. It's not rocket science really.
he's still lucky, which is why you 'touch wood'. you can't drive completely defensively other than by not driving. and you cannot always predict what other drivers will do.
I don't think anyone is saying the car driver was blameless BUT if the bike rider hadn't been going at approximately 40 mph OVER the speed limit, approaching the junction, it wouldn't have happened.
Well, no.
There certainly ARE people saying the driver was blameless and if we have road-users who simply "don't see" oncoming traffic then you're always going to have these accidents, regardless of whether people adhere to speed limits or not.
The debate exists because a motorist has erred, but has been deemed to be the cause of death in criminal law. You have just reinforced the argument against that charge by stating that the biker might have lived had he been travelling at a lower speed. The rider caused his own death.
Well, yeah. That's because I'm trying to take a balanced view of the incident, but that's also why I find it so disturbing that the vast majority of people in this thread seem to be overlooking the driver's incompetence and focussing on the biker's speeding.
I mean, at the simplest level, you've got people saying "It wouldn't have happened if he wasn't speeding" and that's utter shite. The only difference is that the result might not have been fatal.
Conversely, it definitely wouldn't have happened if the car didn't pull across the road, regardless of the speed of the biker.
Well, yeah. That's because I'm trying to take a balanced view of the incident, but that's also why I find it so disturbing that the vast majority of people in this thread seem to be overlooking the driver's incompetence and focussing on the biker's speeding.
I mean, at the simplest level, you've got people saying "It wouldn't have happened if he wasn't speeding" and that's utter shite. The only difference is that the result might not have been fatal.
Conversely, it definitely wouldn't have happened if the car didn't pull across the road, regardless of the speed of the biker.
I think the motorist should have insisted that he would plead guilty to careless driving, because that is probably indisputable, but given the speed of the rider as evidenced, he would be pleading not guilty to the charge of causing death by careless driving.
Yes he was arrogant, ignorant and selfish. The way he was was riding his bike indicates that he thought of no one but himself and thought that he was above the law.
I don't think anyone is saying the car driver was blameless BUT if the bike rider hadn't been going at approximately 40 mph OVER the speed limit, approaching the junction, it wouldn't have happened.
Fact is, he should not have been doing that speed on a public highway, EVER. The road could've been totally clear and he still shouldn't have been doing that speed. NO driver should drive at that speed on bikes or in cars. If they do then their actions are indefensable.
And before you say it, no I'm not a bike hater, I'm a selfish driver hater. My uncle is 58 today and has ridden huge bikes all his life without an accident (touch wood). He rides defensively, thinking ahead and always predicting what other drivers might do. It's not rocket science really.
Correct. It makes it worse that the road he was riding on had quite a few cars that were travelling at a much lower speed than he was, plus the fact that a car could have turned right onto the side road.....which that car did.
Yeah, like I said earlier, I feel sorry for the driver. The whole process was probably just something they wanted to get over and done with quickly so they could try and get on with their lives - other individuals may have gone down a different path regarding the courts/liability for the incident, but it's hard to say whether they were mis-advised. It's possible.
I do fear it sets a precedent though for the idiotic portion of bikers - storming through t-junctions at stupid speeds, the liability is all on the other cars now?
Don't know, I think this could have been a real opportunity to get through to those thick bikers. "You treat the roads like your own race track without any regards for other road-users, it's all on you if it goes pear-shaped."
But I'm rather puzzled with the tone of the Police and court statements regarding this incident. It's all weighted towards the driver.
Re BIBs. I don't see how apportioning blame in this or other similar situations will have any impact on the decision-making of motorcyclists in future. It's not as though the cyclist in this case is in any position to say "I told you so", it wasn't my fault.
What is telling is that the junction is clearly signposted further back, it isn't as if it was hidden. And being from the area, the biker would be familiar with the route anyway. That familiarity led to complacency I feel, to the ultimate detriment.
Well, yeah. That's because I'm trying to take a balanced view of the incident, but that's also why I find it so disturbing that the vast majority of people in this thread seem to be overlooking the driver's incompetence and focussing on the biker's speeding.
I mean, at the simplest level, you've got people saying "It wouldn't have happened if he wasn't speeding" and that's utter shite. The only difference is that the result might not have been fatal.
Conversely, it definitely wouldn't have happened if the car didn't pull across the road, regardless of the speed of the biker.
Unfortunately the FM's concentrating solely on the speed of the biker seem to think that means the biker was out of sight and then just appeared in the motorists view meaning he couldn't have avoided it. Looking at the video it's clear where the bike is just before the car decides to turn as you can see him passing a road sign at the beginning of the junction. If you look on Google Streetview from the filter lane that the car is in you can see that the bike really isn't that far away and is definitely within view..... if the driver is looking in that direction. The fact he claims not to have seen him indicates he made the turn without checking there was still no traffic.
The motorist could of been a serial careless driver or made one mistake judged from a situation that wouldn't of happened if the biker drove correctly. If the biker drove like that all the time, it could of been someone else's mistake to cause his death. If any lesson should be learnt is that you should be more aware as a driver/biker and as a default, stick to the law. Most biker's (and also drivers) will cross that line time and time again and in a way, are partially responsible for perpetuating the myth that it's ok to bend the law.
The mother talks about motorists slowing down, what about her son that was travelling way too fast? She also said that motorists should think before they turn when it came to bikers, which I suppose I agree with. I notice she didn't criticise her son's riding speed before he hit the car. She didn't have to criticise it harshly, but she could have made it clear that she didn't agree with him travelling at that speed where there were quite a few cars about that were going much slower than him.
Those accidents are survivable. I know because I had one, at very low speed however. The car I hit pulled out on me from a side road to my left. But because I wasn't caning the bike along an A-road that day, I wasn't terribly injured. My bike was wrecked though.
One of our friends had an accident similar to yours, a lorry pulled straight out of the side road also on the left without attempting to slow down or stop and hit our friend side on. Luckily the road behind was clear of other traffic and our friend was air lifted to hospital and suffered horrendous injuries but he survived but still carries problems from his injuries.
As much as he still wants to ride it is impossible now.
I am glad you survived too .
I think you are being deliberately obtuse here. It is so common for motorists not to "see" bikes even though they are patently not blind, that whole campaigns such as THINK BIKE and the public education adverts are built around the fact.
He didn't see the motorbike or the car following the bike and admitted he should have. It's not like he said he saw it and thought he could make the manouvere safely but the bike was going too fast.
But as it has been said already, people admit guilt for all kinds of reasons. I wouldn't have, I would have had a jury watch that video.
The first question that you be asked is did you see the bike or the car behind the bike before you turned and your answer would be 'no'. The speed of the bike doesn't give you carte blanche to be careless.
He didn't see the motorbike or the car following the bike and admitted he should have. It's not like he said he saw it and thought he could make the manouvere safely but the bike was going too fast.
The first question that you be asked is did you see the bike or the car behind the bike before you turned and your answer would be 'no'. The speed of the bike doesn't give you carte blanche to be careless.
And that's probably why he was advised to plead guilty. Should have kept stum.
Too many motorbike apologists. The issue is broken down like this:
1) Was the biker to blame, and could his own actions have prevented his death?
Yes, he should never have been doing that speed and there is no excuse. He was on borrowed time and he is lucky he didnt kill anybody.
2) Was the car driver at fault wholey or partially?
Its easy to say he should have seen the motorbiker, but looking at the facts, he stated that he didnt see either the motorcyclist or the car. His turn would therefore have been wreckless. HOWEVER, what I believe probably happened is he did see the car up ahead, and his brain worked out that he had enough time to turn (as in 99.9% of the time he would have). When driving is second nature your brain judges gaps and distances based on what it can reasonably expect. Could the driver reasonably expect a motorcyclist to recklessly overtake and cover 200m in 5 seconds? Thats a kilometre in 25 seconds. No he couldnt, but after going through something traumatic he would have forgotten all about the car and be focused on the impact. Lets not forget that he had a vehicle slam into him at 97mph, its not like he was able to think "oh no old sport we appear to have pranged".
Personal opinion: I believe the driver of the car genuinely didnt see the motorcyclist because of the reckless speed he was going at. The motorcyclist caused his own death, and it was coming. This should serve as a reminder not to #thinkbike but for bikers to #thinkofyourselves. Im not saying that all car drivers are fantastic, Im saying both bikes and cars acting recklessly at speeds such as this should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and black box speed monitoring cant come fast enough. Car drivers have been in undated with thinkbike messages, bikers now need to start thinking of themselves.
What would have been interesting would be a dashcam on the car, so we had the drivers perspective.
Too many motorbike apologists. The issue is broken down like this:
1) Was the biker to blame, and could his own actions have prevented his death?
Yes, he should never have been doing that speed and there is no excuse. He was on borrowed time and he is lucky he didnt kill anybody.
2) Was the car driver at fault wholey or partially?
Its easy to say he should have seen the motorbiker, but looking at the facts, he stated that he didnt see either the motorcyclist or the car. His turn would therefore have been wreckless. HOWEVER, what I believe probably happened is he did see the car up ahead, and his brain worked out that he had enough time to turn (as in 99.9% of the time he would have). When driving is second nature your brain judges gaps and distances based on what it can reasonably expect. Could the driver reasonably expect a motorcyclist to recklessly overtake and cover 200m in 5 seconds? Thats a kilometre in 25 seconds. No he couldnt, but after going through something traumatic he would have forgotten all about the car and be focused on the impact. Lets not forget that he had a vehicle slam into him at 97mph, its not like he was able to think "oh no old sport we appear to have pranged".
Personal opinion: I believe the driver of the car genuinely didnt see the motorcyclist because of the reckless speed he was going at. The motorcyclist caused his own death, and it was coming. This should serve as a reminder not to #thinkbike but for bikers to #thinkofyourselves. Im not saying that all car drivers are fantastic, Im saying both bikes and cars acting recklessly at speeds such as this should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and black box speed monitoring cant come fast enough. Car drivers have been in undated with thinkbike messages, bikers now need to start thinking of themselves.
What would have been interesting would be a dashcam on the car, so we had the drivers perspective.
Excellent post, and well said. Echoes my feelings exactly, and I agree about how our brain will typically make such calculations and judgments of distance and expected speed.
Excellent post, and well said. Echoes my feelings exactly, and I agree about how our brain will typically make such calculations and judgments of distance and expected speed.
Comments
There weren't any other vehicles... you are allowed to turn off or overtake, that's legal.
I think he was careless up to a point, because we are supposed to watch out for other speeding or drunk or careless motorists and pedestrians etc at all times.
But that really doesn't make it your fault.
I don't think he was causing the death by being careless, I think he got totally screwed.
My heart goes out to the mother and the motorist.
i get that you are pointing out blame you can attribute to the biker.
i am making the point that fault (and blame) doesn't really make much difference to the relative outcomes in bike vs car.
I agree. As road users we have an obligation to be aware of other road users, but I think it is a lot to ask of motorists to take responsibility for other people who drive dangerously or speed excessively as this biker was.
Oh, right. I must have just dreamed that he'd been convicted of the criminal offence of causing a death by careless driving.
Pulling across a road, into the path of oncoming traffic, IS breaking a law.
I find it incredibly saddening that so many people here seem to think that it's okay to drive like a brainless zombie as long as the person you kill was speeding.
If this had happened at 60mph, and the biker had only received multiple broken bones or, perhaps, been paralysed would the driver still have been blameless?
If not then I don't really see how his burden of responsibility can be negated simply because the other person was doing something reckless as well.
This really SHOULDN'T be a "cars vs bikes" thing. It should be a case where ALL road users can learn from the mistakes of others.
Yes he was arrogant, ignorant and selfish. The way he was was riding his bike indicates that he thought of no one but himself and thought that he was above the law.
I don't think anyone is saying the car driver was blameless BUT if the bike rider hadn't been going at approximately 40 mph OVER the speed limit, approaching the junction, it wouldn't have happened.
Fact is, he should not have been doing that speed on a public highway, EVER. The road could've been totally clear and he still shouldn't have been doing that speed. NO driver should drive at that speed on bikes or in cars. If they do then their actions are indefensable.
And before you say it, no I'm not a bike hater, I'm a selfish driver hater. My uncle is 58 today and has ridden huge bikes all his life without an accident (touch wood). He rides defensively, thinking ahead and always predicting what other drivers might do. It's not rocket science really.
The debate exists because a motorist has erred, but has been deemed to be the cause of death in criminal law. You have just reinforced the argument against that charge by stating that the biker might have lived had he been travelling at a lower speed. The rider caused his own death.
he's still lucky, which is why you 'touch wood'. you can't drive completely defensively other than by not driving. and you cannot always predict what other drivers will do.
Well, no.
There certainly ARE people saying the driver was blameless and if we have road-users who simply "don't see" oncoming traffic then you're always going to have these accidents, regardless of whether people adhere to speed limits or not.
Well, yeah. That's because I'm trying to take a balanced view of the incident, but that's also why I find it so disturbing that the vast majority of people in this thread seem to be overlooking the driver's incompetence and focussing on the biker's speeding.
I mean, at the simplest level, you've got people saying "It wouldn't have happened if he wasn't speeding" and that's utter shite. The only difference is that the result might not have been fatal.
Conversely, it definitely wouldn't have happened if the car didn't pull across the road, regardless of the speed of the biker.
I think the motorist should have insisted that he would plead guilty to careless driving, because that is probably indisputable, but given the speed of the rider as evidenced, he would be pleading not guilty to the charge of causing death by careless driving.
Correct. It makes it worse that the road he was riding on had quite a few cars that were travelling at a much lower speed than he was, plus the fact that a car could have turned right onto the side road.....which that car did.
Re BIBs. I don't see how apportioning blame in this or other similar situations will have any impact on the decision-making of motorcyclists in future. It's not as though the cyclist in this case is in any position to say "I told you so", it wasn't my fault.
Unfortunately the FM's concentrating solely on the speed of the biker seem to think that means the biker was out of sight and then just appeared in the motorists view meaning he couldn't have avoided it. Looking at the video it's clear where the bike is just before the car decides to turn as you can see him passing a road sign at the beginning of the junction. If you look on Google Streetview from the filter lane that the car is in you can see that the bike really isn't that far away and is definitely within view..... if the driver is looking in that direction. The fact he claims not to have seen him indicates he made the turn without checking there was still no traffic.
Correct and straight to the point.
Even at 60, such a crash would have likely been fatal.
One of our friends had an accident similar to yours, a lorry pulled straight out of the side road also on the left without attempting to slow down or stop and hit our friend side on. Luckily the road behind was clear of other traffic and our friend was air lifted to hospital and suffered horrendous injuries but he survived but still carries problems from his injuries.
As much as he still wants to ride it is impossible now.
I am glad you survived too .
He didn't see the motorbike or the car following the bike and admitted he should have. It's not like he said he saw it and thought he could make the manouvere safely but the bike was going too fast.
The first question that you be asked is did you see the bike or the car behind the bike before you turned and your answer would be 'no'. The speed of the bike doesn't give you carte blanche to be careless.
And that's probably why he was advised to plead guilty. Should have kept stum.
1) Was the biker to blame, and could his own actions have prevented his death?
Yes, he should never have been doing that speed and there is no excuse. He was on borrowed time and he is lucky he didnt kill anybody.
2) Was the car driver at fault wholey or partially?
Its easy to say he should have seen the motorbiker, but looking at the facts, he stated that he didnt see either the motorcyclist or the car. His turn would therefore have been wreckless. HOWEVER, what I believe probably happened is he did see the car up ahead, and his brain worked out that he had enough time to turn (as in 99.9% of the time he would have). When driving is second nature your brain judges gaps and distances based on what it can reasonably expect. Could the driver reasonably expect a motorcyclist to recklessly overtake and cover 200m in 5 seconds? Thats a kilometre in 25 seconds. No he couldnt, but after going through something traumatic he would have forgotten all about the car and be focused on the impact. Lets not forget that he had a vehicle slam into him at 97mph, its not like he was able to think "oh no old sport we appear to have pranged".
Personal opinion: I believe the driver of the car genuinely didnt see the motorcyclist because of the reckless speed he was going at. The motorcyclist caused his own death, and it was coming. This should serve as a reminder not to #thinkbike but for bikers to #thinkofyourselves. Im not saying that all car drivers are fantastic, Im saying both bikes and cars acting recklessly at speeds such as this should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and black box speed monitoring cant come fast enough. Car drivers have been in undated with thinkbike messages, bikers now need to start thinking of themselves.
What would have been interesting would be a dashcam on the car, so we had the drivers perspective.
http://youtu.be/RQrHRN01hQY
Excellent post, and well said. Echoes my feelings exactly, and I agree about how our brain will typically make such calculations and judgments of distance and expected speed.
Agree completely.