NSFW IF you were the judge in this case what would you have done?

[andya700]

You really need to ask???
Your first sentence implies the accident was all the bikers fault. Untrue as has been pointed out.
Why are you so sick of a campaign to reduce accidents and deaths? would you say the same about breast or prostate cancer campaigns?
Regarding your 'think car' idea i agree. Make all car users aware they're not the only motorist on the roads and ALL road users have equal rights! cyclists, motorcycles, tractors, caravans, trucks..etc

Once again, speaking as an ex biker, bikes are very difficult to see, particularly when they are doing nearly a ton. The biker was driving recklessly/dangerously with no regard for other road users.
The driver was probably advised to plead guilty by his insurance company's solicitors, something which is very common nowadays, particularly in a case where he has failed to give way, resulting in another vehicle hitting him.

 

[andya700]

You would replicate whatever was there if possible to reconstruct an accident.

Realistically Bernie, that would involve closing the road for a long time, and getting three vehicles to replicate the positions and most importantly the speed - a very simple but costly process, but the only way to find out if it could have been avoided.
There have of course been plenty of incidents of emergency vehicles t-boning other vehicles, whilst travelling at high speeds. Speed limits are there for a reason, to allow safe progress. Safe progress includes things like reaction time, being able to see vehicles and make decisions.
The biker was an accident waiting to happen.

 

[Byker28i]

Too fast, dark clothing, no headlights and weaving in and out of traffic like THEY own the road.
Now, before you go and say I am IMPLYING that ALL riders are like this, I am not. Some are very sensible, but many are not.

Not many bikes without headlights on now - been mandatory for years

 

[Byker28i]

The biker was driving recklessly/dangerously with no regard for other road users..

Nope - sorry, I thought he made (the fatal) mistake of overtaking at a junction, which is even specifically mentioned int he highway code.

 

[Laudrup]

The bike was speeding but the car driver shouldn't have made the manoeuvre and should have seen the biker and the car following.

 

[Bernie174]

Realistically Bernie, that would involve closing the road for a long time, and getting three vehicles to replicate the positions and most importantly the speed - a very simple but costly process, but the only way to find out if it could have been avoided.
There have of course been plenty of incidents of emergency vehicles t-boning other vehicles, whilst travelling at high speeds. Speed limits are there for a reason, to allow safe progress. Safe progress includes things like reaction time, being able to see vehicles and make decisions.
The biker was an accident waiting to happen.

Erm, and your point is what? Of course the road is shut while they do it. It takes about 30 minutes, takes a police solo, and 2 police cars, its a cheap and very simple easy short process. As I said, they'd replicate whatever was there at the time.
BUT, as with all these things, you can say that the bike would have been visible for x amount of time, what you can't do is say that the driver saw it. From experience it would come as no surprise to me or any other Police Officer, drivers don't look much beyond the end of their bonnet. I have just driven 70 miles down the M3, I could quote you 40 or 50 examples of drivers who clearly weren't. Should he have seen it? Yes, on my standard of driving he should. That he didn't comes as no surprise to me though.

Yes, the biker was an accident waiting to happen, I am in 100% agreement there, but that fact remains, that the car driver is equally culpable. Had the biker lived, then I would have expected him to have been charged with reckless driving (The speed is a component of that, so unlikely to be charged as a separate offence). I don't see any problem with careless for the car driver, I don't think causing death by careless was appropriate though, the rider caused his own death by his own hand by driving at that speed.

However, as I keep saying it is a moot point, the driver pleaded guilty.

 

[SFTPhotography]

Ride like an idiot, you're going to get yourself killed. He was going to fast and overtaking where he shouldn't gave been.

Sick to death of the "think bike" campaign.
What about a " think car " campaign, or an obey the road rules campaign.

x2. If he had been going a more sensible speed for the conditions, the driver would have been better equipped to handle the speed and judge it, and indeed clear the junction.

Bikers, as they are more vulnerable, need to consider their vulnerability and take less risks as they will always come off worse than a car driver. Expect the unexpected and you don't go for wrong in the roads. A speed like that is safe, but not in road conditions like that

 

[nilagin]

Erm, and your point is what? Of course the road is shut while they do it. It takes about 30 minutes, takes a police solo, and 2 police cars, its a cheap and very simple easy short process. As I said, they'd replicate whatever was there at the time.

I'd say it would take longer than that, they have no idea how fast the over taken car was going. Plus you also need to find the exact spot at which both vehicles were visible, i.e the point of the overtake as well as replicating their exact positions on the road. Also, the vehicle turning right did it stop before turning or did it pull into the central reservation area, and just turn thinking the road clear.

 

[omens]

Also, the vehicle turning right did it stop before turning or did it pull into the central reservation area, and just turn thinking the road clear.

From what I could tell in the video, this is what it looked like to me. The driver moved into the filter lane, paused and then moved off. He could easily have not seen the bike if it wasn't visible at the time he looked.

 

[Bernie174]

I'd say it would take longer than that, they have no idea how fast the over taken car was going. Plus you also need to find the exact spot at which both vehicles were visible, i.e the point of the overtake as well as replicating their exact positions on the road. Also, the vehicle turning right did it stop before turning or did it pull into the central reservation area, and just turn thinking the road clear.

Nope, it takes that amount of time. You only need to establish at what point the bike and car are visible from the impact car and the point of impact. That gives you a distance.
You can work out speed from the video, there's nothing magical about that, it just makes it much easier in this case, because you have the video, you have a plan of the road, so you can work out (later) at what speed the bike was at, at any point during the film, because you can relate it to static objects in the background. I know the speedo is visible too, but there are not that accurate.

Without that video it's a guess what speed he was driving at initially, as there wouldn't be an accurate time source. Breaking would self evidently cause the speed to slow, and if you're lucky you would have a tyre witness mark which would help, but you would end up with an estimated average.

As for did the car stop? Watch the video, the answer is there.

 

[nilagin]

From what I can see the car never stopped at the give way line it was constantly moving from when it moved into the turning lane, again no idea of the speed of that car neither, was it still slowing, was it accelerating? I can't see how they can determine how far the car was away from the junction when the driver would have been able to see the car and bike, it would all be a guesstimate.

 

[Bernie174]

Yep, you're right it didn't stop. He is obviously obliged to at least give way, he hit something, so he didn't. It does having thought about it reinforce the careless driving, we know he's said he didn't see the bike and I would put money on it being because he wasn't looking far enough ahead.

working out the distance is really where the bike was when the car first entered the field of view on the video, at max, and the distance between the give way line and the point the bike was at when it turned as a minimum.

The only debatable point is was it against a background that the rider might have blended into. I doubt it looking at the video.

 

[andya700]

Nope - sorry, I thought he made (the fatal) mistake of overtaking at a junction, which is even specifically mentioned int he highway code.

I think that we both agree on that, but from the start of the video (the part where he started on his last journey), he was overtaking multiple vehicles, at speeds well in excess of the limit, so IMO it was only a matter of time before he had a major crash.

 

[andya700]

Erm, and your point is what? Of course the road is shut while they do it. It takes about 30 minutes, takes a police solo, and 2 police cars, its a cheap and very simple easy short process. As I said, they'd replicate whatever was there at the time.
BUT, as with all these things, you can say that the bike would have been visible for x amount of time, what you can't do is say that the driver saw it. From experience it would come as no surprise to me or any other Police Officer, drivers don't look much beyond the end of their bonnet. I have just driven 70 miles down the M3, I could quote you 40 or 50 examples of drivers who clearly weren't. Should he have seen it? Yes, on my standard of driving he should. That he didn't comes as no surprise to me though.

Yes, the biker was an accident waiting to happen, I am in 100% agreement there, but that fact remains, that the car driver is equally culpable. Had the biker lived, then I would have expected him to have been charged with reckless driving (The speed is a component of that, so unlikely to be charged as a separate offence). I don't see any problem with careless for the car driver, I don't think causing death by careless was appropriate though, the rider caused his own death by his own hand by driving at that speed.

However, as I keep saying it is a moot point, the driver pleaded guilty.

Had he lived, then I would have expected him to be charged with dangerous driving, because that is what it was.

 

[BillN_33]

he was overtaking multiple vehicles, at speeds well in excess of the limit, so IMO it was only a matter of time before he had a major crash.

Not really Andy ……. lots of guys do that on a weekly basis and are still with us, sadly it is why some go out ……… I'm not saying it's right or defending it, but I see/saw it all the time when I am in the UK especially in the summer months …….. I lived for 35 years very near the A272 and as I said earlier I rode bikes for years.

 

[BillN_33]

Had he lived, then I would have expected him to be charged with dangerous driving, because that is what it was.

He would have been charged with exceeding the speed limit had they caught him … had he been involved in an accident and still lived he could have been charged as you suggest.

 

[andya700]

He would have been charged with exceeding the speed limit had they caught him … had he been involved in an accident and still lived he could have been charged as you suggest.

That is what I meant Bill, I was talking about the scenario of him surviving the accident.

 

[BillN_33]

That is what I meant Bill, I was talking about the scenario of him surviving the accident.

Thanks Andy ……. for a lot, (most) Bikers it is a weekend, sunny evening summer "sport" ………. I sure most car drivers cannot remember if they have ever overtaken a "sports" Bike …….. but the reverse is very common ……… unfortunately it is the norm for such riders to break the speed limit.

But you can have a lot of fun, if that is what you want, on a Bike whilst keeping within the speed limits …….. even on normal roads

As I have said a few times in this thread, it is really sad for all involved as it has affected many lives ………….

 

[Byker28i]

Can't quite see what speed it was but he stayed at a fairly consistent speed looking at the needle position of approx half way around so either 80 or 90mph?

 

[SFTPhotography]

Had he lived, then I would have expected him to be charged with dangerous driving, because that is what it was.

sec 2 or 3 charge for sure there given the traffic conditions. If he survived the incident but killed the driver on impact, we'd all be baying for blood on TP. Had the car been further accross, a 97mph impact into the side of the car would surely have killed its occupants. If he surved he be facing a causing death by careless/dangerous driving.

 

[Carlo]

Yes I need to ask.

I never implied anything. The biker was speeding and riding recklessly. That is a fact!
Obviously you are a biker because you seem to think that cars drivers believe they are the only road users and cause all the bike accidents on the road, but more often than not these accidents are caused by bikers, riding like idiots.

Too fast, dark clothing, no headlights and weaving in and out of traffic like THEY own the road.
Now, before you go and say I am IMPLYING that ALL riders are like this, I am not. Some are very sensible, but many are not.

A car is a large bulky vehicle, it can not easily weave in and out of traffic, they can not go as fast as bikes and yet you think it is just car drivers that should "THINK BIKE". Since when do bikers not have to THINK?

Hmmm, where to start?
Let's forget the actual incident for a few moments.
I 'was' a biker, many moons ago, but have driven cars for the last 15 yrs.
When you ride a motorcycle you have no distractions other than the traffic/road.
When you drive a car you have more distractions than i can mention, not to forget impaired visibility.
If every car driver had ridden a bike or scooter the roads would be a far safer place.
Last time i heard, over 70% of motorcycle accidents were caused by other road users, and it was always around this figure.
This may now have changed as the trend over the last 10 or 20 years seems to indicate less younger riders and more older first time bikers.
Also you have to remember it's much more difficult to acquire a bike licence now. Training is much more difficult involving engine/power restrictions when you do pass your test.
Compare that to a 17 yr old who's just passed their car test, they can then be let loose on the roads with a 200mph supercar!
Also you're very quick to point blame at the biker and not mention once the reckless driving of the car!!
What have you got against bikes 'legally' filtering through traffic? jealousy? annoyed you're stuck in traffic and they're not?

 

[Carlo]

What the hell have cancer campaigns got to do with anything?!?

errr, because they have campaigns that are designed to reduce deaths like the 'THINK BIKE' one!!!

 

[Byker28i]

I can't find the story but a good few years ago a car followed a bike which filtered between cars to get to the front of the queue on the a34/M4 junc13 roundabout, only the old boy in the car just ended up wedged between the other cars.