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

[Sharky]

Imo rider massively at fault and cost him his life, driver could of done better. As a rider you look out for number one because no bugger else will and generally the odds are always stacked against you. You'll most certainly come worse off in most situations so the riders actions were as proven deadly.

I'd of liked to see a not guilty plea entered and the evidence tested in court. Sympathies with the riders family and the driver.

 

[BillN_33]

Just looking through the video again, it starts with a very nice guy full of life, he seems happy, pulls out onto the road and accelerates away as you do on a big bike, quickly through the gears and up to speed…. you make "progress"
He then decides to "blast" by a fews cars, opens the throttle and eases back after the overtake, he is enjoying his ride, maybe something just clicked in his head that causes this as it could well have been against his normal riding style in traffic. Riding a Bike is enjoyable for many reasons … but it is best to be cool minded in traffic, a guy of his experience would know this.

He then approaches a clear hazard, which he would have seen - he was an experienced rider of mature age and he will have come across cars waiting to pull out of side roads and turning left and right in front of him many times ……. as a Biker you ALWAYS look out for stuff like this, because you have probably had "near misses" in the past, even at very slow speeds. Normally he would have rolled back the throttle and used the extreme deceleration that a (big) Bike has to slow him right down, he would then have tried to make eye contact with the driver to establish what may happen, or not …… it is normally second nature for a rider like the guy in question. Looking at the vid, for some reason he did not and accelerated into a clear hazard ….. why ….. no one knows …….. he was riding (too) fast …. into a hazard …… no idea why …… to ride fast you have to concentrate ……. so he was also concentrating …… he shouted "no" before he hit the car …. he knew what could happen ……….no idea why the accident occurred …. all I feel is sadness for all concerned, including the driver.
He was just yards away when the driver turned as he hit the front of the car not the side ….. he was riding (too) fast but the car driver just did not see him at all ……. again I have no idea why .. was he distracted, was there just a blind spot in his vision or what?

What his mother wants in more awareness, to bring just a little justification, (maybe the wrong word), for her sons death …… that's what we all want …… to safeguard the people we love …….. she must look at the video and think ….. he is alive at this stage …… lets just stop it and all will be OK …….. it is just surreal for her.

Both the driver and the rider are guilty, but mainly of being just human

 

[omens]

7 seconds to spot the vehicles, one of which had their headlights on? Time to hand in your licence then, you're a danger on the road.

Please tell me at what point you spotted the black vehicle making the turn? No way was it seven seconds.

The 7 seconds was the time from overtake to impact.
The driver had about 3 seconds to see the bike before he started his turn.

This what I saw when I watched the video on my 22" monitor. Instead of three seconds, I spotted at about 4 seconds.

There's no way the car that was overtaken would have had to reduce speed. It was overtaken along way back. The other driver could have easily made the turn before the other car was even close.

I agree - I would have checked mirrors, indicated, slowed to the right hand turn lane (not necessarily stopping), checked to see the oncoming car and work out its speed and assess how fast it was coming, judge whether it was safe to turn (incl looking into the road I'm driving into), and made the turn. I've done this about a gazillion times. Sometimes I stop before making the turn. Sometimes I don't. But if the biker appears in the time it takes me to accelerate into the junction, it'll have been too late because I'm looking at what's in the new road.

But, if the rider hadn't been doing approaching 100mph at the junction, the car driver would have been safely across and the bike wouldn't have been at that point. Nobody to blame but the idiot on the bike.

I agree that this is down to the speed of the bike and it's overtaking and sudden appearance. This is all easy to speculate from a video but real life is very different to this.

As a relevant anecdote I remember from my teenaged years, the first time I spectated on the RAC Rally. Three of us who competed in club rallying were horrified at the lack of imagination of most spectators who stood just by the forest track as cars hurtled past at around 97mph. Didn't they realise that cars could crash? We spectated from the safety of six foot up the nearest tree.

I agree it's something I'd be very wary of. Having seen rally driving, the safest place to be is on the sofa.

Most road users are closed minded, by conditioning and experience. We don't anticipate vehicles to be travelling at almost 100 mph, and because of that anticipation is based on a vehicle travelling at or around the speed limit.

TBH I look at how fast a vehicle is approaching. I don't consider its precise speed but more its closing speed - ie "is it gonna get to the junction before I am?" The problem is that the biker would have "suddenly" appeared at 100mph. No matter what you anticipate, I don't think most people would be able to react quickly enough.

 

[simonblue]

Just looking through the video again, it starts with a very nice guy full of life, he seems happy, pulls out onto the road and accelerates away as you do on a big bike, quickly through the gears and up to speed…. you make "progress"
He then decides to "blast" by a fews cars, opens the throttle and eases back after the overtake, he is enjoying his ride, maybe something just clicked in his head that causes this as it could well have been against his normal riding style in traffic. Riding a Bike is enjoyable for many reasons … but it is best to be cool minded in traffic, a guy of his experience would know this.

He then approaches a clear hazard, which he would have seen - he was an experienced rider of mature age and he will have come across cars waiting to pull out of side roads and turning left and right in front of him many times ……. as a Biker you ALWAYS look out for stuff like this, because you have probably had "near misses" in the past, even at very slow speeds. Normally he would have rolled back the throttle and used the extreme deceleration that a (big) Bike has to slow him right down, he would then have tried to make eye contact with the driver to establish what may happen, or not …… it is normally second nature for a rider like the guy in question. Looking at the vid, for some reason he did not and accelerated into a clear hazard ….. why ….. no one knows …….. he was riding (too) fast …. into a hazard …… no idea why …… to ride fast you have to concentrate ……. so he was also concentrating …… he shouted "no" before he hit the car …. he knew what could happen ……….no idea why the accident occurred …. all I feel is sadness for all concerned, including the driver.
He was just yards away when the driver turned as he hit the front of the car not the side ….. he was riding (too) fast but the car driver just did not see him at all ……. again I have no idea why .. was he distracted, was there just a blind spot in his vision or what?

What his mother wants in more awareness, to bring just a little justification, (maybe the wrong word), for her sons death …… that's what we all want …… to safeguard the people we love …….. she must look at the video and think ….. he is alive at this stage …… lets just stop it and all will be OK …….. it is just surreal for her.

Both the driver and the rider are guilty, but mainly of being just human

Or just not abiding to the very simple high way code

 

[dean messenger]

when you consider if it was 3 seconds at 97 mph, thats 43 metres per second being covered. so thats almost 130 metres. consider an olympic track and the sprint is 100 metres long.. when you look at that distance 100 metres seems quite some distance away and certainly in your mind would make you think you have plenty of time to cross. I can only guess that similar discussions are going around all over the web on forums, blogs etc so the video in one sense has achieved the awareness it set out to do.

 

[simonblue]

when you consider if it was 3 seconds at 97 mph, thats 43 metres per second being covered. so thats almost 130 metres. consider an olympic track and the sprint is 100 metres long.. when you look at that distance 100 metres seems quite some distance away and certainly in your mind would make you think you have plenty of time to cross. I can only guess that similar discussions are going around all over the web on forums, blogs etc so the video in one sense has achieved the awareness it set out to do.

But will it change anything ?,a lot people even on here believe their nothing wrong with speeding

 

[overbez]

But will it change anything ?,a lot people even on here believe their nothing wrong with speeding

Completely agree... there've been similar shock videos posted before, and people still drive / ride like this.

Even after this, as I said earlier.. people will still drive the way they did before they saw this video. Maybe not the same day, but certainly it will be forgotten within a few weeks.

 

[cambsno]

Am not a biker but I would guess that the speeds you can do is part of the thrill of having a bike, same as sometimes it's nice to drive fast.

 

[simonblue]

Am not a biker but I would guess that the speeds you can do is part of the thrill of having a bike, same as sometimes it's nice to drive fast.

Fair enough,but don't whine about it if you kill yourself or if you get baned,or you end up in prison because you kill somebody,or if somebody else is speeding and kills somebody you care about.

 

[Bernie174]

TBH I look at how fast a vehicle is approaching. I don't consider its precise speed but more its closing speed - ie "is it gonna get to the junction before I am?" The problem is that the biker would have "suddenly" appeared at 100mph. No matter what you anticipate, I don't think most people would be able to react quickly enough.

Which is my point.
The driver would commit the offence if his driving fell below the level to which a reasonably competent driver would drive at.
I don't believe that the prosecution could have met that test had they been challenged to do so. They weren't, as he pleaded guilty, so its academic.

 

[ecoleman]

Yes, but the post wasn't specific to what charge. ..just a blanket not guilty

Who cares

 

[viv1969]

Who cares

Clearly not you.
Bit sad really.

 

[ecoleman]

Not for your posts no.

It seems you go out of you way to pick holes in somebodies post in just about every thread I read.

 

[BillN_33]

Not for your posts no.

It seems you go out of you way to pick holes in somebodies post in just about every thread I read.

Yeh, a bit sad, really

but usually it's a complete lack of understanding of what has been said, so you have to make allowances

 

[LASTOLITE]

I was driving on the East Lancs yesterday a 60 limit Duel Carriageway I drove through the lights and turned into the road only to see 3 blokes on sports bikes at the lights - I cringed as the all three passed me at well over double my speed of 60mph. Even this morning taking my lad to school a lad on a sports bike in a 50 overtook a whole line of traffic, I saw him trying to make it in front of me before a huge lorry full of pallets passed me, I slowed and got in left as he passed and dove into the gap - I got the left hand low wave of thanks - once the truck had cleared he was off again I only saw him because he had one bright headlight on of the twin lights the bike had.

 

[overbez]

I was driving on the East Lancs yesterday a 60 limit Duel Carriageway I drove through the lights and turned into the road only to see 3 blokes on sports bikes at the lights - I cringed as the all three passed me at well over double my speed of 60mph. Even this morning taking my lad to school a lad on a sports bike in a 50 overtook a whole line of traffic, I saw him trying to make it in front of me before a huge lorry full of pallets passed me, I slowed and got in left as he passed and dove into the gap - I got the left hand low wave of thanks - once the truck had cleared he was off again I only saw him because he had one bright headlight on of the twin lights the bike had.

How many bikers will be out and about today (or maybe next weekend), riding in a similar fashion. I'd suspect pretty much the same number as before this video was released.

I rest my case.

with your second example.... what if you hadn't been as attentive to your mirrors, and the pallet lorry had drifted towards your side of the carriageway..... could have been a close call for the biker...

And who do you think they would have been bad-mouthing later on that day to their mates??

Sadly the disproportionate ratio of biker statistics to bikers as a percentage of road users will remain so until they stop treating the public road as a race track.

 

[nilagin]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...bike-crash-try-stop-families-going-agony.html

If you look at the 2nd photo in the above news article, if the rider had been at the speed limit, in my opinion, the distance from the bike to the junction is more than enough time for the motorist to comfortably make the turn safely, for the bike to have hit the front of the car, it's easy to imagine how much ground the bike had actually made in a very short amount of time.
Obviously and comes as no surprise is that the rider died, but if you scroll to the bottom of the page for the remains of the car, it makes you wonder how the car driver would have fared if the bike had hit the door, even though the driver was seated on the other side of the car.

 

[BillN_33]

Or just not abiding to the very simple high way code

I agree and I do not think I or anyone else has disputed that, but even if the rider had been travelling within "national speed limits" if you look at the video he was just a few yards away when the driver decided to turn so I do not think that the result would have been any different if he had been that near to the car at "national speed limit speeds".

My point has always been to try to understand what happened and the feelings of all parties and in my riding days, and I have ridden a lot, I was always an advocate of road safety.
The car driver just did not see the motorcyclist and if you look at what I have said I am not blaming him as I understand that such things happen.

When I watched the video it brought clear memories back to me of similar situations when I rode a Bike ……. by similar I mean the danger of not being aware of cars pulling out, turning in etc., on UK single carriageway roads. It is really a tragedy for all involved, including the guys who would have attended the accident and dealt with it, one of the first at the scene could well have been a police motorcyclist…… they are affected by accidents like this, you only have to talk to them.

I agree Bikes in the wrong hands are dangerous and even in the right hands UK roads are dangerous for riders

 

[Bobsyeruncle]

The court didn't find the driver guilty, he pleaded guilty. A whole world of difference.

He could only plead guilty though if he was charged. If the police thought he was innocent, they would not have charged him.

 

[nilagin]

He could only plead guilty though if he was charged. If the police thought he was innocent, they would not have charged him.

Being charged has nothing to do with how someone pleas. If the driver felt he was not guilty he could plea not guilty. It's the prosecutions job then to prove he was guilty.

 

[viv1969]

Not for your posts no.

It seems you go out of you way to pick holes in somebodies post in just about every thread I read.

That might tell you something.

 

[nilagin]

That might tell you something.

You're a hole picker? Didn't your mum ever tell you, it'll never get better if you keep picking it?

 

[Bobsyeruncle]

Being charged has nothing to do with how someone pleas. If the driver felt he was not guilty he could plea not guilty. It's the prosecutions job then to prove he was guilty.

I know that, however, he could only plead guilty if he was actually charged with an offence. If he wasn't charged, there would be no case to answer, and no plea to be made.

 

[Pookeyhead]

This is simple: The car driver probably either didn't see the bike, or DID see it assumed it was far enough away to not cause an issue. However... as the bike was doing pretty much 100mph..... it got there a damned sight faster than anyone could have realistically anticipated. It's hard to accurately judge speed when the object is heading straight towards you, and doubly so when it's a bike. The driver had some part to play in this, but the event happened because the guy was doing 100mph.. simple as that.

I know loads of bikers, and I've nothing against bikers, but it's grossly unfair to have these "think bike" campaigns aimed at car drivers, when more often than not there's a need for a "Think Car" campaign aimed at bikers... and perhaps more pertinently, perhaps we need a campaign that simply aims to stops bikers riding like complete knobheads, which a great many do.... often.


There's nothing to justify doing 100mph on that road in the video. No one expects anything coming towards you at such speeds, and unless you are experienced at seeing vehicles approach at such speed it's very likely that many people will misjudge how much time is available. No matter which way you look at this, the biker is the one ultimately responsible for his own death here, and that responsibility occurred when he decided to ride at 100mph on a public road with a speed limit far below that.

The end.

 

[Bobsyeruncle]

This is simple: The car driver probably either didn't see the bike, or DID see it assumed it was far enough away to not cause an issue. However... as the bike was doing pretty much 100mph..... it got there a damned sight faster than anyone could have realistically anticipated. It's hard to accurately judge speed when the object is heading straight towards you, and doubly so when it's a bike. The driver had some part to play in this, but the event happened because the guy was doing 100mph.. simple as that.

I know loads of bikers, and I've nothing against bikers, but it's grossly unfair to have these "think bike" campaigns aimed at car drivers, when more often than not there's a need for a "Think Car" campaign aimed at bikers... and perhaps more pertinently, perhaps we need a campaign that simply aims to stops bikers riding like complete knobheads, which a great many do.... often.

There's nothing to justify doing 100mph on that road in the video. No one expects anything coming towards you at such speeds, and unless you are experienced at seeing vehicles approach at such speed it's very likely that many people will misjudge how much time is available. No matter which way you look at this, the biker is the one ultimately responsible for his own death here, and that responsibility occurred when he decided to ride at 100mph on a public road with a speed limit far below that.

The end.

I know the biker was riding recklessly, but the only thing that actually caused the crash was the car turning in.
That guy possibly rode at those speeds on that road every day and didn't crash.
His speed may have contributed to the fact that the car driver didn't see him, but only the car turning in caused the collision.
I agree that the speed was responsible for the collision being fatal, but if he'd hit the car doing 60, it probably could still have been fatal.
I know folks will say if he'd been doing 60, then the car and the bike would never have met, but they did, and they only collided because the car turned in.

 

[viv1969]

You're a hole picker? Didn't your mum ever tell you, it'll never get better if you keep picking it?

Let me know if you know anything about my mum.
She's been dead for 24 years btw.....just saying. ....

 

[sturisoma]

I gave up biking when yet another of my friends was knocked off and suffered the oh too common brachial plexus injury resulting in a paralysed right arm. Accidents happen in cars or bikes but the risk of disabling injuries is greater on a bike so I gave up. Have to say the majority of my biking friends who've had accidents have been in the right, ie riding normally and safely. The fact is bikes are hard to spot from a car unless you are very bike aware. How many of us check our mirrors for filtering bikes before changing lanes on a motorway? I drive hundreds of miles a week on motorways for my job and most drivers don't look at all before changing lanes! Don't even indicate. My car is now fitted with a dash cam to record all the numpties. I haven't watched the video so I won't comment on this particular crash, but it sounds like sadness for all involved.

as for all the nit picking about how many seconds to see and react - don't forget that the highway code includes 'thinking' or 'reacting' time in the braking distances.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I know the biker was riding recklessly, but the only thing that actually caused the crash was the car turning in.

Did you read what I wrote? Without prior experience of what a bike approaching you at 100mph actually looks like, there's a massive chance you'll judge it very badly... which is why we have speed limits. A vehicle approaching at 100mph is upon you before you've realised what's happening. It's for this reason we only allow a 70mph limit on dual carriageways with a central reservation, and all other roads, no matter how wide or remote are limited to 50 or 60mph.

That guy possibly rode at those speeds on that road every day and didn't crash.

And that somehow makes it OK?

His speed may have contributed to the fact that the car driver didn't see him, but only the car turning in caused the collision.

So even if his stupid speed was the reason for him not being observed, it's STILL the car driver's fault? How does that that work?

I agree that the speed was responsible for the collision being fatal, but if he'd hit the car doing 60, it probably could still have been fatal.

But he'd be going 40mph less, and the car would have safely cleared the junction before he even got there.

I know folks will say if he'd been doing 60, then the car and the bike would never have met, but they did, and they only collided because the car turned in.

No, they probably wouldn't have met... and yes they did... because he was doing 100mph. As a car driver with no experience of judging vehicles travelling towards you at 100mph, you're just not equipped to make a judgement call on it... if you even see the bike at all that is. At that speed, that far distant headlight you think is very far away, is upon you before you far faster than you can ever realise.

 

[seriousrikk]

Wow, those stills actually go a lot further to demonstrate just how quick that gap closed. I'll be he was already starting the turn in the first shot too.

It's interesting to think, once the turn has started, how likely is it to have another quick glance along the road rather than look towards the road you are turning into? One of those things, maybe a last quick glance along the road as the car crossed the line could have made a difference. Maybe not, although I'm going to start seeing if that is possible without compromising awareness of the road I'm turning into.

 

[Bobsyeruncle]

Did you read what I wrote? Without prior experience of what a bike approaching you at 100mph actually looks like, there's a massive chance you'll judge it very badly... which is why we have speed limits. A vehicle approaching at 100mph is upon you before you've realised what's happening. It's for this reason we only allow a 70mph limit on dual carriageways with a central reservation, and all other roads, no matter how wide or remote are limited to 50 or 60mph.





And that somehow makes it OK?





So even if his stupid speed was the reason for him not being observed, it's STILL the car driver's fault? How does that that work?



But he'd be going 40mph less, and the car would have safely cleared the junction before he even got there.



No, they probably wouldn't have met... and yes they did... because he was doing 100mph. As a car driver with no experience of judging vehicles travelling towards you at 100mph, you're just not equipped to make a judgement call on it... if you even see the bike at all that is. At that speed, that far distant headlight you think is very far away, is upon you before you far faster than you can ever realise.

Who says I've no experience of vehicles driving towards me at 100mph? I've also been riding bikes for over 30 years, and I'm well aware of speed/distance/time etc. neither of us know what the car driver did or didn't see, but he told the police he wasn't aware of the bike, or a car. It was a straight stretch of road, so I would say that he should have had the opportunity to at least see the car, if not the bike. Given that he admitted not seeing the car, I would say he didn't look properly.
If he'd said he saw the car, and turned in as he thought he had plenty of time, and then the bike appeared out of nowhere then that would be different.
I am not saying that the bikers speed wasn't a contributory factor, but the collision only occurred because the car turned in, and that is a fact.
I am also not saying that if the biker did ride at those speeds on that road every day that it makes it alright either.

 

[Pookeyhead]

One of those things, maybe a last quick glance along the road as the car crossed the line could have made a difference.

Doubt it. The car driver would have probably braked instinctively.... result would have been the same. You should just not.... ever... do 100mph on a single carriageway when there's other traffic approaching... even in a car that's far more visible, but especially on a bike that is far less visible. I know bikers always use their headlight, but sometimes, while alerting their presence to drivers effectively, it can also make it harder to judge the closing speeds involved.

You just do not expect another vehicle to be closing that gap at 100mph, and very few drivers would be able to judge that... having never seen it before. That extra 30 or 40 mph makes a Massive difference. If he'd have been doing 60mph, that's only 60% of the speed he was doing, and therefore would have only covered 60% of the distance between first observation, and impact... meaning the car would have started the manoeuvre with 40% of the distance left, and probably cleared the junction when the bike still had 20% of that distance yet to travel. Which would be perfectly normal in most instances. The fact is, he either was not seen due to his excessive speed, or if he was, just made it impossible for the car driver to accurately judge the closing gap. Either way... biker's fault. He was a long way away when that car started to turn. If he was doing 60... that would have been nothing more than a case of being annoyed at the car driver for being a little impatient.

Who says I've no experience of vehicles driving towards me at 100mph?

Did I name you or something? I said MANY people have no experience of what a bike heading towards them at 100mph looks like... which is true.

 

[seriousrikk]

Doubt it. The car driver would have probably braked instinctively.... result would have been the same. You should just not.... ever... do 100mph on a single carriageway when there's other traffic approaching... even in a car that's far more visible, but especially on a bike that is far less visible. I know bikers always use their headlight, but sometimes, while alerting their presence to drivers effectively, it can also make it harder to judge the closing speeds involved.

You just do not expect another vehicle to be closing that gap at 100mph, and very few drivers would be able to judge that... having never seen it before. That extra 30 or 40 mph makes a Massive difference. If he'd have been doing 60mph, that's only 60% of the speed he was doing, and therefore would have only covered 60% of the distance between first observation, and impact... meaning the car would have started the manoeuvre with 40% of the distance left, and probably cleared the junction when the bike still had 20% of that distance yet to travel. Which would be perfectly normal in most instances. The fact is, he either was not seen due to his excessive speed, or if he was, just made it impossible for the car driver to accurately judge the closing gap. Either way... biker's fault. He was a long way away when that car started to turn. If he was doing 60... that would have been nothing more than a case of being annoyed at the car driver for being a little impatient.

.

Oh I don't disagree with you one bit here. Far from it.

Just thinking out loud - and wondering if there is anything we car drivers can do differently that might prevent deaths.

While in my opinion the blame lays fairly with the biker, I still never want to be in the situation of the driver.

 

[nilagin]

Who says I've no experience of vehicles driving towards me at 100mph? I've also been riding bikes for over 30 years, and I'm well aware of speed/distance/time etc. neither of us know what the car driver did or didn't see, but he told the police he wasn't aware of the bike, or a car. It was a straight stretch of road, so I would say that he should have had the opportunity to at least see the car, if not the bike. Given that he admitted not seeing the car, I would say he didn't look properly.
If he'd said he saw the car, and turned in as he thought he had plenty of time, and then the bike appeared out of nowhere then that would be different.
I am not saying that the bikers speed wasn't a contributory factor, but the collision only occurred because the car turned in, and that is a fact.
I am also not saying that if the biker did ride at those speeds on that road every day that it makes it alright either.

Stop the video at the point that the bike overtakes the car, can you clearly see the oncoming car or even the junction. By the time the got to the junction, the overtaken car would still be a long way back from the junction, easy enough for it to not register properly to the driver that he'd actually seen it or remember seeing it. I'd imagine the driver to have been quite traumatised by the incident and the last few seconds are probably repeating over and over in his mind making the rest of the lead up not really register.

 

[Bobsyeruncle]

Did I name you or something? I said MANY people have no experience of what a bike heading towards them at 100mph looks like... which is true.

That's not what you said though. You said in response to my statement......
Without prior experience of what a bike approaching you at 100mph actually looks like, there's a massive chance you'll judge it very badly. I obviously took it to mean that when you said "you" that you meant me.

 

[BillN_33]

Let me know if you know anything about my mum.
She's been dead for 24 years btw.....just saying. ....

picking holes again, that's all you do, just try to understand other people and constructively contribute

as you say, it is really (ironically) sad

It's not about your mum, my mum, or anybody's mum, it's about you

 

[Pookeyhead]

I was responding to your points made, yes, but if you read what I also wrote in the post I made further up, it makes it plain that I am speaking generally. Even if you are capable of judging it well.. you're rare.

 

[viv1969]

picking holes again, that's all you do, just try to understand other people and constructively contribute

as you say, it is really (ironically) sad

It's not about your mum, my mum, or anybody's mum, it's about you

Oh I'm sorry....was I talking to you?

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Oh I'm sorry....was I talking to you?

Jeez, come on Ruth, do you have to take every thread to a personal squabble?

 

[Byker28i]

Please tell me at what point you spotted the black vehicle making the turn? No way was it seven seconds.

Are you deliberately being obtuse? Ch Insp Chris Spinks, head of the Norfolk and Suffolk Roads Policing Unit, said the car should not have attempted the manoeuvre. An inquest heard that driver Benjamin Austin would have had sight of him and his bike for seven seconds before the collision.
Ignore the video, that's a wide angle lens on that camera that doesn't match what your eye can see.

Ignoring the speed, how far is the biker from the junction, has the car turned yet? Bearing in mind that's a wide angled lens and the bike is coming towards the vehicle with headlights on. 5 or 6 car lengths? Yes the biker is contributing by his speed, but there's no way the car driver shouldn't have spotted the bike

 

[BillN_33]

As an ex rider and driver, the more I watch the video the more I feel for all concerned ….. he is alive in the video and a few seconds later he is dead ……. you cannot fail to see the tragedy of the situation from all sides ………. really the driver for whatever reason did not see the rider or was not looking, he may have been distracted, he may have had things on his mind, he may have been thinking or not thinking, but he turned ……. the rider should have expected that as it happens to riders …….. had he seen the rider he would not or should not have turned.

OK he was speeding, but we all break the highway code every day

It was a cruel death