ArteSuave Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 the fact is the biker was responsible for the crash, mate. Thanks for clarifying. I thought it was a matter that was up for debate (hence the IMO in my OP) but you've put me dead straight there. That's that then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phumfeinz Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Don't mention it. It was a terrible opinion and needed straightening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted September 5, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted September 5, 2014 (edited) So... a child crosses the road and doesn't see the motorbike and is knocked over. Is the child responsible for the accident or is the guy on the bike who is almost 40mph over the speed limit and unable to stop responsible? Well, I think the inclusion of a child in the equation is unfair. If a fully grown adult steps out in front of a motorbike going almost 40mph over the limit then he's partly responsible. But the biker is still mostly to blame, because his excessive speed means the accident couldn't be avoided, whereas if he'd been going slower he could have stopped or swerved or whatever. But I don't think somebody stepping out in front of a motorbike should be deemed totally not responsible, regardless of its speed (again, and regarding the earlier post, not saying you ARE absolving anyone of all blame, just clarifying my position) Edited September 5, 2014 by Stevo985 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted September 5, 2014 Moderator Share Posted September 5, 2014 So... a child crosses the road and doesn't see the motorbike and is knocked over. Is the child responsible for the accident or is the guy on the bike who is almost 40mph over the speed limit and unable to stop responsible? Well, I think the inclusion of a child in the equation is unfair. If a fully grown adult steps out in front of a motorbike going almost 40mph over the limit then he's partly responsible. But the biker is still mostly to blame, because his excessive speed means the accident couldn't be avoided. I don't think it is (although it was intentional emotive) and I didn't say the age of the child, they could be 17 it is irrelevant really, there could have been a child in the car who could have been seriously hurt. The point is that the actions of the guy on the bike are irresponsible and illegal and the cause of the accident. If I crossed the road with or without looking and you hit me at almost 40 mph over the limit, you are going to prison. Period. I don't see this as being any different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted September 5, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted September 5, 2014 Yep agree. They're going to prison. But stepping out into the road without looking is a **** stupid thing to do regardless of what speed anybody is going. Basically, where do you draw the line. If I'm doing 55 mph in a 50 limit and that car in that video does what he does and I hit him, does doing 5 mph over the limit immediately mean I'm at fault? I know that's different than doing 100mph, but where do you draw the line? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phumfeinz Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 I imagine the guy in the car is looking at the bike head on, and it's hard to judge the speed of something that small. It's likely he thought the bike was travelling at legal speeds and assumed that he had plenty of time to make the turning before the bike would reach him. Of course it's poor form on the car driver's part to assume anything but that's how people go about their lives. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted September 5, 2014 Moderator Share Posted September 5, 2014 Stupid isn't the same as criminal and it doesn't carry the same level of responsibility in my view. As for your hypothetical question, its a fair one and one there isn't really an answer that I can give that would come down to the CPS and a jury or magistrate. However another hypothetical is if you were going 42 mph slower could you break or alter your path to avoid a crash. Another is if you were going 42 mph slower would the driver of the car have more chance of seeing you or of reacting fast enough to do something about it like increase the speed of their turn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArteSuave Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 So... a child crosses the road and doesn't see the motorbike and is knocked over. Is the child responsible for the accident or is the guy on the bike who is almost 40mph over the speed limit and unable to stop responsible? In this scenario whoever is responsible for the child (possibly the child itself) is responsible for it being in the middle of the road and the biker would have the same amount of blame he has in the real crash. But because there is less total responsibility for having a child (no test and licence) the biker is "mainly responsible" and in a legal context he's breaking the law at the time so would be very, very jailed. In the actual real scenario both parties are responsible for their vehicles (tested and licenced) and both of them made bad errors that caused the collision. IMO (although I've now been made aware it's contrary to fact) turning across oncoming traffic (presumably without looking) had a greater contribution to that particular crash than the biker's speed did. The turn was so slow and badly timed that if the bike was going 60 at the point the car turned he'd have still hit him (IMO obviously, I'm open to being persuaded by diagrams and calculations ). Legally, the driver made an error and the biker was willingly breaking the law so if he was immortal he'd have lost his licence and probably gone to jail. But the other guy still turned slowly across clearly oncoming traffic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArteSuave Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 It's likely he thought the bike was travelling at legal speeds and assumed that he had plenty of time to make the turning before the bike would reach him. I think this is where we disagree then. I don't think he'd have made his turn if the bike was going 60 from the exact same point it was at when he started turning. How much extra time would it have given him? The bike hit the front of his car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted September 5, 2014 Moderator Share Posted September 5, 2014 One thing is for certain, he was thrown a hell of a long way from the point of impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted September 5, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted September 5, 2014 That's it, basically. Turning across oncoming traffic is putting him somewhat at fault. And the fact that the driver was allegedly prosecuted for the accident would support that. However, I sort of go back to Arte's original point. The biker caused his own death by going too fast. But I'm not so sure you can say the driver didn't cause the crash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lapal_fan Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Well if the bike had been going 50mph, he'd have had twice as long to perform the maneuver. It was the bikers right of way, but he was speeding. If the car had though "ooh, I can probably nip out infront of him here" then he's in the wrong. It's difficult, because there is blame at both ends of the spectrum. I don't even know what the story is though, so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArteSuave Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 One thing is for certain, he was thrown a hell of a long way from the point of impact. It looks like it hurt for sure. There wasn't even one of those condescending biker's shakes of the head judging by the lack of movement from his bright red helmet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted September 5, 2014 Moderator Share Posted September 5, 2014 One thing is for certain, he was thrown a hell of a long way from the point of impact. It looks like it hurt for sure. There wasn't even one of those condescending biker's shakes of the head judging by the lack of movement from his bright red helmet. I would imagine he was dead by the time he came to a stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted September 5, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted September 5, 2014 In stafford, the main roundabout has about 4 different pedestrian crossings, 3 of them, the button has no effect at all, its there purely as a thing for people to press, and still people think they are controlling the traffic by pressing it. I mentioned this (probably in this thread) ages ago. Pedestrian lights at traffic interchanges are not controlled in any way by pressing the buttons. I just wait for the lights to change, but people invariably tut and reach across me to press the button - usually repeatedly. Wasting their time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingram85 Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Both at fault, biker too fast, driver made an idiotic decision. Bikers should slow down and be more careful, drivers need to check better and be more careful. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is there will always be bad bikers/drivers so crashes/deaths will always happen. Its up to the more sensible lot of us to be careful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phumfeinz Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 One thing is for certain, he was thrown a hell of a long way from the point of impact. It looks like it hurt for sure. There wasn't even one of those condescending biker's shakes of the head judging by the lack of movement from his bright red helmet. I would imagine he was dead by the time he came to a stop. Yeah, probably snapped his neck on landing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArteSuave Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 One thing is for certain, he was thrown a hell of a long way from the point of impact. It looks like it hurt for sure. There wasn't even one of those condescending biker's shakes of the head judging by the lack of movement from his bright red helmet. I would imagine he was dead by the time he came to a stop. Yeah, probably snapped his neck on landing Maybe. I thought Trent was saying he was killed by the initial impact, but it could easily have been the bouncing on the floor. I'm never sure with crashes like this. You see some high speed collisions where people survive, at least for a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 That biker who died going 100mph through an intersection. No sympathy. The people who seem to think this is the car drivers fault. Words fail me. It's a bit of both. I'd say blame primarily lies with the biker. Had he been doing, say, 55 in a 50 limit then I'd say it wasn't his fault. But 97 mph is ridiculous. However, I don't think you can excuse the driver for pulling out in front of someone like that, regardless of the speed of the oncoming vehicle. So yes, the speed he was going it was his own fault. but I think the car driver shouldn't be totally absolved of blame. I'm entirely in agreement with Trent here. The bike rider was over the speed limit by nearly 40mph. He wasn't doing this on a motorway or dual carriageway even, it was on a single carriage road, with all sorts of junctions and intersections. When somebody's travelling that fast, they're upon you in a second, and at that speed there's no margin for error whatsoever. Living on the IOM as I do, I see this sort of behaviour from bike riders on a daily basis, but especially during TT and the Manx Grand Prix, where bikers seem to think that they can ride as they like without any thought for anybody else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted September 5, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted September 5, 2014 I think I agree with Trent too, I'm just coming at it from a different angle. But the driver was prosecuted so presumably the courts don't absolve the driver of blame either. What about this. Say it turned out the driver of the car had been on his phone. Who's at fault then?That's not a provocative question, just curious. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts