• Can't post after logging to the forum for the first time... Try Again - If you can't post in the forum, sign out of both the membership site and the forum and log in again. Make sure your COG membership is active and your browser allow cookies. If you still can't post, contact the COG IT guy at IT@Concours.org.
  • IF YOU GET 404 ERROR: This may be due to using a link in a post from prior to the web migration. Content was brought over from the old forum as is, but the links may be in error. If the link contains "cog-online.org" it is an old link and will not work.

Rider hits car @ 97mph in the UK..

But isn't it amazing that the car driver didn't get off with nothing?  In the states, it would have been "yeah, you pulled a stupid move but the the bike was speeding, so no problem, go home."  From what I have read, there was a car behind the bike that the driver also never noticed. The family is very brave to help with the video, and maybe it can raise awareness to dumb and/or inattentive driving/riding and save someone else.
 
Rain Dancer said:
But isn't it amazing that the car driver didn't get off with nothing?  In the states, it would have been "yeah, you pulled a stupid move but the the bike was speeding, so no problem, go home."  From what I have read, there was a car behind the bike that the driver also never noticed. The family is very brave to help with the video, and maybe it can raise awareness to dumb and/or inattentive driving/riding and save someone else.
Click to expand...

Depends on the state, but yea, generally that's true from a criminal standpoint - whoever was the primary contributor garners all the fault. Not sure I agree with it, but there's a certain logic.

In this case (if it were in the US) it probably would've been argued to the judge that had the bike been going slower the accident wouldn't have happened, so the culpability would lie with the motorcyclist. While if it happened at legal speeds, liability would be cast upon the car.

The other difference would be civil liability here, which I believe the Brits don't permit if the criminal case was decided against you. Though I'm not that familiar with their court system, since it's very different than ours (no Constitution, but rather the Magna Carta and then laws constructed around those concepts). If I recall, they only permit actual losses to be recovered in court - no punitive damages, etc.

The police officers commentary was appreciated - I like that he "made no excuse" for presenting the video. The news outlet deserves credit for stopping the vid just before impact - also appreciated.

Sad for the rider, though he put himself in a VERY high risk situation. It's one thing to be going 100mph on an open highway in the west, with no traffic, and a completely different scenario to ride fast on a two-lane road though an intersection (those roads make me ten kinds of nervous).
 
I think most of us would have gotten threw that one. Even at the high speed. Only an unexperienced rider would go left into the front of the car.  Target fixed.
 
We judge maneuvers based on what we perceive to be closing distance based on what? The speed limit.
So If I travel over the speed limit I have to keep that in mind. What that other driver estimates to be a safe turn across my path thinking I am traveling close to the speed limit will affect his decision.
The investigation reveals the car driver to be partially at fault.
 
JimBob said:
Depends on the state, but yea, generally that's true from a criminal standpoint - whoever was the primary contributor garners all the fault. Not sure I agree with it, but there's a certain logic.

In this case (if it were in the US) it probably would've been argued to the judge that had the bike been going slower the accident wouldn't have happened, so the culpability would lie with the motorcyclist. While if it happened at legal speeds, liability would be cast upon the car.
Click to expand...

In our state none of that seems to apply. In this accident (  http://www.theindychannel.com/news/local-news/grant-county-sheriffs-deputy-killed-in-crash  ) no charges were filed against the driver that turned left in front of my friend on one of the straightest, flattest roads in the state of Indiana. Even though he was an LEO it was not pursued. His GF, I have known for years, has had several surgeries all paid for by a combination of the state and donations from a fund  her former employer set up as she had opted out of her insurance months before. THe public is paying for her ongoing medical care NOT the driver who turned in front of her and Mike.

THere was no speeding or crazy driving going on. He had those eye searing LEDS on his new Harley. They were on a leisurely trip down toward Indy for a nice dinner. He had the presence of mind to reach back and throw AMy from the bike knowing the truck had changed direction abruptly to beat them to the turn. SHe has recounted it over and over to me in the past year. 
 
freebird6 said:
JimBob said:
Depends on the state, but yea, generally that's true from a criminal standpoint - whoever was the primary contributor garners all the fault. Not sure I agree with it, but there's a certain logic.

In this case (if it were in the US) it probably would've been argued to the judge that had the bike been going slower the accident wouldn't have happened, so the culpability would lie with the motorcyclist. While if it happened at legal speeds, liability would be cast upon the car.
Click to expand...

In our state none of that seems to apply. In this accident (  http://www.theindychannel.com/news/local-news/grant-county-sheriffs-deputy-killed-in-crash  ) no charges were filed against the driver that turned left in front of my friend on one of the straightest, flattest roads in the state of Indiana. Even though he was an LEO it was not pursued. His GF, I have known for years, has had several surgeries all paid for by a combination of the state and donations from a fund  her former employer set up as she had opted out of her insurance months before. THe public is paying for her ongoing medical care NOT the driver who turned in front of her and Mike.

THere was no speeding or crazy driving going on. He had those eye searing LEDS on his new Harley. They were on a leisurely trip down toward Indy for a nice dinner. He had the presence of mind to reach back and throw AMy from the bike knowing the truck had changed direction abruptly to beat them to the turn. SHe has recounted it over and over to me in the past year.
Click to expand...


You know, focusing on that one sentence and arguing against it is essentially quoting me out of context.

Yes, your specific example shows that things can happen differently, but what I was discussing was the GENERAL difference between British law and American law. Hence the use of the word "generally".

By god, anyone can show an exception to any guideline/rule at any time. Doesn't make the general principle any less sound.

Furthermore, just because that driver wasn't charged doesn't mean anything about the relative culpability of either him or the motorcyclist - it just shows that for some reason, the prosecutor declined to press charges. Not knowing the individuals, or the politics of the region, I couldn't really speak to why he didn't. For all I know the truck driver was in witness relocation, or was an undercover cop, or an FBI agent, or a senators son. There could be myriad reasons why it wasn't pursued - not living there, and lacking any serious depth of information about what is going on makes assessing the propriety of the prosecutors actions suspect at best, and downright ignorant at worst.

In the end, it doesn't really matter - we all know that courts won't always charge the person at fault, and even if they did, you're still injured or dead. So our own safety falls to US to be very attentive, very defensive.

I have had exactly ONE accident in my life, on my first motorcycle. Although it was the classic "turn left" scenario, I recognize my culpability for that accident. Was it all the car drivers fault? Yes. But I could've easily prevented it.

Because of that accident I learned that being a good driver was more than simply managing the vehicle well, and maneuvering well, and changed all my driving to be much more defensive, much safer, and reduce risks tremendously.

Because of this, I haven't had to worry about whether the "other driver" was going to be charged.

THAT's the lesson here.
 
I don't disagree nor was you r general conversation lost on me. Fact is, I can put up the last 6 motorcyclists killed by cars across our 3 county area and there are no charges, insurance reparations or culpability on the part of the drivers who admitted their fault in any of those cases. The prosecutors and police are not pursuing any traffic violations in our area let alone charges for killing cyclists. I totally agree with your genral application but I am closely watching the wrecks in our area to see if any of these are being treated with anything but a shrug of the shoulders and an Oh well. So far nothing in the last 18 months.
 
Nasty video.
My friend and his wife essentially did the same thing with the same result. Now I know what it looked like to them.
 
danodemotoman said:
We judge maneuvers based on what we perceive to be closing distance based on what? The speed limit.
So If I travel over the speed limit I have to keep that in mind. What that other driver estimates to be a safe turn across my path thinking I am traveling close to the speed limit will affect his decision.
The investigation reveals the car driver to be partially at fault.
Click to expand...

People place too much faith in others ability to operate the vehicles.  Just as the vehicle operator misperceived the speed of the bike the motorcyclist misperceived the drivers ability to wait.  Biker may have been concealed by the rearview, bad driver vision, glare, who knows?

I do know the motorcyclist paid with the ultimate though so the blame mostly resides with him.  Mess with the bull....
 
Totally non motorcycle related, but same lines.  My mother was in a car on a road in front of her house, which has a 50 mph speed limit 1 1/2 weeks ago.  She was waiting to make a left turn. She waited for two cars to pass, and there were two more behind them a bit, and didn't think she could make it, so she waited.  In the meantime a vehicle coming from behind her with a half mile of visibility of that intersection, never saw my mother.  When I say never, I mean NEVER, as there was no skid marks and the lady never tried to swerve. She admitted to police that she never saw my mother.  Yes, we are vulnerable on a motorcycle, more so than a car, which should make us a lot more aware.  I teach my kids, you have to think for the other drivers, as they are not thinking.  I also teach them, motorcycle or car, the most dangerous place on a road is an intersection, weather it is a pull off, driveway, parking lot, road, trail, etc, and always pay close attention.  As cars and technology get smarter, people pay more attention to them, than they should, distracting them from what they should be focusing on.  Cell phones, and GPS's are the worst!!!  Too many people look at a GPS instead of listening as they should be. There was an article in a local motorcycle newspaper 2 years ago about a couple riding in Virginia.  They were riding down a road with a 40 mph speed limit in a town.  A van cut them off making a turn.  The recreation determined they had less than 2 seconds to react.  The rider died on impact, the passenger, his wife, like the story below has had at least 12 surgeries so far, and is still not right or healed.  The reason the van cut them off was their GPS told them to turn left here.  Not all accidents are avoidable.  We can prepare and practice all we want, and there are many times it may save us, but not always.
 
The same death could have occurred at 45 mph or lower.

Here in Texas, 97mph would only have been 12 over the speed limit on a couple of roads. Is that reckless? No.  But the road also does not have side streets where the speed limit is 85.

I think the biker is just as at-fault as the car driver.  It's one thing to screw around at 97 in short spurts, but to do this at an intersection where 90 FREAKIN PERCENT OF CRASHES OCCUR is really not smart and partly his fault.

Anyone busting 97mph on a secondary road at an intersection that likely will have a car turning onto it or from it is just not smart and it will cut your lifespan short.  I've lost track of the amount of times I've nearly been killed by cars turning left or right in front of me, across my path since I started riding.  If I was doing 97 during any of those, I would have been dead a LONG time ago.

Keep the higher speeds on limited access roads folks.

 
Not all accidents are avoidable.
Click to expand...

I would agree that not all accidents are avoidable - which is why we call them accidents.

WRECKS/CRASHES, however, are largely avoidable. During my driving career, there's been a transition from calling them wrecks or crashes to "accidents". Ugg. They are NOT accidents.


Knowing the only way there can be a car crash with another vehicle is to be around another vehicle, the first step is to minimize being within crashing distance of another vehicle - hence the 2-second-plus following rule, being willing to slow preemptively to problems ahead, and aggressively watch your back for inattentive drivers.

Nuthin' frustrates me more than to get a tailgater or a next-lane-klingon when there's no reason to be driving that close.

Drive like they're ALL out to get you, and you may avoid being "gotten"!
 
ConcoursKZ said:
I think most of us would have gotten threw that one. Even at the high speed. Only an unexperienced rider would go left into the front of the car.  Target fixed.
Click to expand...

^^^^  +1
 
JimBob said:
Not all accidents are avoidable.
Click to expand...

I would agree that not all accidents are avoidable - which is why we call them accidents.

WRECKS/CRASHES, however, are largely avoidable. During my driving career, there's been a transition from calling them wrecks or crashes to "accidents". Ugg. They are NOT accidents.


Knowing the only way there can be a car crash with another vehicle is to be around another vehicle, the first step is to minimize being within crashing distance of another vehicle - hence the 2-second-plus following rule, being willing to slow preemptively to problems ahead, and aggressively watch your back for inattentive drivers.

Nuthin' frustrates me more than to get a tailgater or a next-lane-klingon when there's no reason to be driving that close.

Drive like they're ALL out to get you, and you may avoid being "gotten"!
Click to expand...

I basically agree.  The only crashes that are unavoidable are those caused by blown tires or other sudden mechanical failures, and most of those could be avoided with proper maintenance.
 
Odd to look at this. On October 17 I had an old man pull out in front of me. It has been 6 months. I was life flighted and in a coma for 8 days. Long road and many surgeries. Left leg has plates an screws, right leg has a whole hardware store in it.  Liver and spleen has healed among other things

No charges to the man who pulled in front of me on a US highway where I had the right of way and because I was a motorcyclist the sheriff tried to imply I had been drinking and then took the vitamins in pocket to have them tested as possible narcotics.

They kept my license for some reason. Thought I had lost it but it came one day months later in a plain envelope from the sheriffs dept. after they had decided there was "nothing to charge me with". . Nice that the fellow who blew the stop sign and changed my life forever was never even cited for running the sign.

It is odd that I just saw this as I am sitting here looking at another surgery coming this Thursday.
 
He seemed to be pretty relaxed at that speed in a dangerous scenario ,you can see he had only one hand on the bars just before the impact . Not prepared for the unexpected at all . Close calls like this happen in city driving every day, all day .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top