David's story: Road Safety Campaign

[RossJarvis]

Had the motorcyclist been travelling slower both would have had more time to think and anticipate, as I said previously he was moving at around 43 metres / second.

"One thousand ... two thousand ... thr..." and he would have travelled almost 100 metres.

... According to this http://www.bikesafer.com/detail/braketime.html 476 feet at 95mph :shock:

Speed 95 mph. Braking time: 5.6 seconds. Braking and reaction time: 6.22 seconds. Stopping distance: 476.18 feet (145 m)

Speed 50 mph. Braking time: 2.94 seconds. Braking and reaction time: 3.56 seconds. Stopping distance: 153.44 feet (46.76m)
Speed 60 mph. Braking time: 3.53 seconds. Braking and reaction time: 4.15 seconds. Stopping distance: 210.95 feet (64.29m)

Looking at the video, it seems like the bike was about 50m from the car where it commits to pulling out. A bike at 100 is exactly as visible as a bike at 50 in these circumstances. At 50mph there is a very good chance if not total probability that he would still have hit the car. The car driver is completely at fault because they did not actually look at what was coming "I didn't see him", really, motorcycles do not become invisible when they travel over 60. Additionally the driver admitted he did not see the car behind David!!!

I would not approach this junction in the same manner as David and it could be said that he exhibited poor judgement at least.

I think some people seeing that David had overtaken a couple of cars and was well in excess of the speed limit jump to a few many conclusions about the situation. Pretty close behind him were two cars, probably both very visible and likely to be travelling at 60mph (not seen by the killer driver!!!!!). Even if the motorcycle wasn't there this would have been a completely irresponsible manoeuvre, likely to have caused an accident.

The investigating officers and courts have done the "proper thing" and a complete silly person has been prosecuted.

If the car that the driver "did not see" was filled with a young family, travelling at 60mph and they all died, I don't think anyone would have any sympathy for them.

 

[ColeyS1]

What if we look at the size of a bike compared to the size of a car. A bike must be at least a third of the size ? that must be harder to spot .

 

[RossJarvis]

What if we look at the size of a bike compared to the size of a car. A bike must be at least a third of the size ? that must be harder to spot .

I see loads of motorcycles daily, I've never been surprised by one. They are not that hard to spot. I can see them even if they are a mile away If you are making a snap judgement with a quick glance, they are certainly less easy to spot than an elephant painted safety orange. The reason that motorcyclists are encouraged to wear high visibility markers is not that they are actually difficult to see, it's because it makes them more noticeable to all the drivers who aren't paying enough attention. Even with a headlight on, a bright yellow jacket and a white helmet, I have frequently had people pull out on me, usually during very good visibility conditions.

The important issue is not that he didn't see the bike, it's that he didn't see the bike nor the two cars very close behind the bike, this shows he(or she) was not actually paying any attention to oncoming traffic.

 

[ColeyS1]

The fact is the smaller something is, the harder it is to spot. I had a real close mate of mine get knocked off and put in intensive care when I first started college. Another college mate piped up It was his own fault for not predicting the accident. I was ready to rip him a new a hole cause I was so angry with what he said. Experience tells me now there are two sides to every story.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

What if we look at the size of a bike compared to the size of a car. A bike must be at least a third of the size ? that must be harder to spot .

I see loads of motorcycles daily, I've never been surprised by one. They are not that hard to spot. I can see them even if they are a mile away If you are making a snap judgement with a quick glance, they are certainly less easy to spot than an elephant painted safety orange. The reason that motorcyclists are encouraged to wear high visibility markers is not that they are actually difficult to see, it's because it makes them more noticeable to all the drivers who aren't paying enough attention. Even with a headlight on, a bright yellow jacket and a white helmet, I have frequently had people pull out on me, usually during very good visibility conditions.

The important issue is not that he didn't see the bike, it's that he didn't see the bike nor the two cars very close behind the bike, this shows he(or she) was not actually paying any attention to oncoming traffic.

I would go out with swmbo, in full leathers and fully loaded with luggage on a bike that was 2.54mtrs (yes, 8'5") long weighing half a tonne loaded, wearing hi viz and with a headlight on, and people still couldn't see me. Nothing you can do will make you visible to people who aren't looking. We just need to presume everyone else on the road is a *pineapple moron.

 

[RossJarvis]

The fact is the smaller something is, the harder it is to spot. I had a real close mate of mine get knocked off and put in intensive care when I first started college. Another college mate piped up It was his own fault for not predicting the accident. I was ready to rip him a new a hole cause I was so angry with what he said. Experience tells me now there are two sides to every story.

I have a fair amount of sympathy for this argument, like most people I have made mistakes due to inattention, and yes a motorcycle is not as easy to spot in certain circumstances as a car, plus even dark coloured cars can be hard to spot in circumstances.

For instance a young lad in our village was killed whilst overtaking, by a van driver who pulled out to overtake someone else. He didn't see him as the rear panels blocked his view over the shoulder and the mirrors didn't show him. The van driver was definitely at fault and wasn't prosecuted. If he was actually telling the truth, then yes, this is probably nearer to an accident.

However, in David's story, even though he was above the limit (which is actually permissible during and shortly after overtaking manoeuvres, by the way!) and there is a slight possibility he was less easy to see than an elephant painted safety orange, the fact that the driver did not see the bike or two cars within 100m of a major road junction, coming towards him in perfect visibility show that he(or she) was clearly driving dangerously. As a direct result of this someone is dead. Looking at the video and the circumstances printed elsewhere, it is highly likely that David would be dead or seriously injured even if he had been at or below the limit at the time.

Personally I don't particularly like sports-bike riders riding significantly over the limit, and if David had had more training and approached the junction with better anticipation there may have been a better outcome for all. However in this instance someone has been killed as a direct result of the completely reckless actions of a complete pillock. I find it offensive, deeply, that some people seem to have the view that this guy deserved to have been killed, or that a complete pillock in a car deserves sympathy for killing someone even though they were driving in a much more reckless manner than the person they killed and also put the lives of the following car drivers at severe risk.

Enough said, I shall now get off my high horse. I hope I can find my motorcycle in the morning as apparently it's difficult to b****y see!

 

[Jacob]

......
However, in David's story, even though he was above the limit (which is actually permissible during and shortly after overtaking manoeuvres, by the way!)....

No it is not!

This poor lad was doomed to have an accident if he often drove at near 100mph on ordinary (and busy) roads. Only a matter of time before he or someone else was killed. I'm surprised the car driver was blamed at all in the circumstances.

 

[Tom K]

What if we look at the size of a bike compared to the size of a car. A bike must be at least a third of the size ? that must be harder to spot .

The important issue is not that he didn't see the bike, it's that he didn't see the bike nor the two cars very close behind the bike, this shows he(or she) was not actually paying any attention to oncoming traffic.[/quote]

Where do you get the idea he didn't see the cars? He clearly did and having judged speed and distance proceeded to turn (referred to by driving instructors as "making progress") Car driver having committed to the manoeuvre the motorcycle that then overtook those cars would be obscured by the "A" post on his car this and the excessive speed combined to provide that awful outcome. For 99.9% of road users the outcome would have been the same.

 

[RossJarvis]

Where do you get the idea he didn't see the cars? He clearly did and having judged speed and distance proceeded to turn (referred to by driving instructors as "making progress") Car driver having committed to the manoeuvre the motorcycle that then overtook those cars would be obscured by the "A" post on his car this and the excessive speed combined to provide that awful outcome. For 99.9% of road users the outcome would have been the same.

Maybe it's because I actually bothered to look at the Suffolk Police site where they state that the driver said he did not see the motorcycle, nor the car that was behind it.

I'm not sure how you can say he clearly did!!!! It is fairly clear that a number of people here have a much greater knowledge about the accident than both the Suffolk Police investigators and the CPS who successfully prosecuted the driver. You ought to complain to the Independent Police Complaints Commission to have the driver let off. Maybe he needs a medal for getting rid of another damn fool motorcyclist!!

 

[RogerS]

It's not just motorbikes that are 'invisible'. Round Malvern, we now drive the S2000 with headlights on as all to often we find that we are also 'invisible' and no, we're not exceeding the speed limit. Maybe it's something to do with the low height of the car, that other drivers looking to pull out are focussed elsewhere. Dunno.

I even drive the Discovery at 20 mph, with headlights, on round the narrow lanes by us as there is usually some numpty who thinks he's Fangio. Well, one of us has to be able to stop in time.

 

[cedarwood]

Well as far as I am concerned there are more idiots on motor cycles than there should be and even more in cars. Funnily enough it includes police motorcyclists as only last week my boss was waiting to turn right into a lane with his indicator on and I might add on a long straight road when a group of police motor cyclists out on a high speed training session didn't see him had to take evasive action but one of them still hit him. The only thing he clearly remembers is the officer flying past the passenger window, they tried to blame him for not having his indicator on but the car driver who was following behind them said that he did have it on. So the whole thing was swept under the carpet hush hush like and they probably reported that he had hit a deer that ran across the road.

 

[cedarwood]

However, in David's story, even though he was above the limit (which is actually permissible during and shortly after overtaking manoeuvres, by the way!)

If all vehicles are driving on any road at the correct speed limit for that road, what gives any other driver the right to break the limit just to be front, the only reason for to do so is that you are simply ignoring any speed limits and are speeding.

 

[Lons]

This is a very sad story for all concerned and the family must be applauded as if it makes even one motorcyclist or motorist take more care it is well worth the anguish it must have caused in releasing this video.

The car driver clearly has a portion of blame but how anyone can say the motorcyclist had not is just plain silly (sorry Ross). The guy had he been stopped for speeding would have been heavily fined and automatically lost his licence as he was travelling at 60% over the speed limit. An educated guess would be that he probably risked his life regularly and eventually paid the ultimate penalty.
He could have killed a complete innocent by his illegal and reckless actions and cannot be defended however sad it is.

There are stupid car drivers everywhere but if the stats were available I would put money on there being a higher percentage of stupid motorcyclists, many of whom every weekend, head for areas on the country like mine where winding country roads gives them the speed thrills they crave. anyone who doubts that just needs to spend a few hours on one of these roads and I guarantee their view will be different.
One of my friends, 6 years ago, lost an arm and cost the NHS many hundreds of thousands £s in life saving operations and lifelong treatment and drugs. A normal guy - until he put his leathers on, just lucky he didn't involve anyone else when he took a bend far too fast and not for the first time!

Just my twopennerth :!:
Bob

ps. I haven't ridden a mortorcycle for many years and used to enjoy it but the roads are now just too congested and dangerous to be a pleasure.

 

[Tom K]

Maybe it's because I actually bothered to look at the Suffolk Police site where they state that the driver said he did not see the motorcycle, nor the car that was behind it.

I'm not sure how you can say he clearly did!!!! It is fairly clear that a number of people here have a much greater knowledge about the accident than both the Suffolk Police investigators and the CPS who successfully prosecuted the driver. You ought to complain to the Independent Police Complaints Commission to have the driver let off. Maybe he needs a medal for getting rid of another damn fool motorcyclist!!

People involved in tragic accidents sometimes take on the burden of guilt. It doesn't make it right or a truth.
Here's a thought, why was the oncoming car he didn't see not involved in this collision?

 

[nanscombe]

... Maybe he needs a medal for getting rid of another damn fool motorcyclist!!

I don't think the driver deserves a medal but I think the motorcyclist might have put himself up for an award.

 

[cusimar9]

Having done around 100 laps of the Nurburgring where both cars and bikes ride around at the same time, it came as a big surprise to me how poor the brake performance of bikes is vs cars. That's down to a number of issues - lighter bike, smaller tyre contact, risk of turning over, and fear of that risk. I suspect that's part of the reason the biker in this video didn't even attempt to brake was because he knew he couldn't brake hard enough to actually slow down enough to avoid the impact.

This coupled with the complete lack of protection, the incredible speed of the average bike and the ease with which they can overtake traffic leads to a very dangerous combination which demands 100% attention from not only the bikers but the drivers on the same roads.

Unfortunately, many car drivers drive slow, heavy cars and feel like their journey does not demand 100% of their attention. They're on car phones, they're messing with the radio. Any driver will admit that at times their attention falls below 50%.

Unfortunately that's what happened in this case. A committed biker, moving quickly (but not stupidly so I'd say) was met with a driver giving their journey significantly less than their full attention.

Unfortunately very few drivers can honestly give their full attention to the average car journey and this is partly why bikers are, unfortunately, so at risk.

Of course the speed limit is an important factor but only because lower speed limits allow for lower levels of attention. They help to reduce the risk of people not concentrating.

 

[RogerS]

....(but not stupidly so I'd say) .....

You are joking, surely ?

 

[Tom K]

... Maybe he needs a medal for getting rid of another damn fool motorcyclist!!

I don't think the driver deserves a medal but I think the motorcyclist might have put himself up for an award.

I would have to hold my hands up to having a similar riding style for several years and took a few spills and unexpected right turns when car drivers didn't see me, I have walked with a limp for 35 years my reward for cresting the brow of a hill at excessive speed and finding there was no where to go. I still love riding at any opportunity though and have loved bikes from an early age whenever the question was raised "What are ya Mod or Rocker?" it was Rocker every time :lol: .

 

[Phil Pascoe]

"A committed biker, moving quickly (but not stupidly so I'd say)"

Hell's teeth - what speed through a junction would have qualified as being stupid?... 120? ... 140? ...186 ok?

 

[nanscombe]

If the Police ask a driver in a similar situation the question "Did you see so and so approaching?" whatever answer the driver gives they will be in the wrong.

"No, I did not see them coming" - Driving without due care and attention.
"Yes, I saw them coming (but went carried any way)" - .....