Biker blamed 100% for this crash....fair?

[Fat Angry Scotsman]

[slowasyoulike]

Biker 100% at fault IMO, going waaaaay too fast for the road conditions. The car driver was already committed to the turn by the time he had any chance of seeing matey hurtling into view.

I think if I crashed like that in those circumstances, I'd consider the loss of a toe a small price for pay for escaping the ultimate consequence of riding like an arse.

[Pete.]

[megaross]

Looks like saccadic masking may have been at play or more likely the driver didn't look far enough ahead.

When I drive I'm looking miles ahead of me, planning, anticipating and providing early indication of intention. Start observing most drivers and you'll see they look barely a car length or two in front.

I think if it can be proved the motorcyclist is speeding then they should have partial blame, however it is up to a road user to look sufficiently far enough ahead to assess the situation prior to crossing lanes.

A good example of this (and it's very often people carriers in my experience) is pulling out into the road centre to pass a parked car at the very last moment then swerving sharply back. Highly visible roundabouts are also a good one - they won't indicate til right at the last moment but will slow to a crawl or stop. Shows insufficient planning.

Realistically it would depend on the speed violation being proven without reasonable doubt and the extent, I'd also be interested to see what legal precedent is available in this kind of scenario.

I'd say at least partial fault should fall to the driver unless it could be proven the motorcyclist was riding at a speed which would be considered dangerous driving. It's not clear cut off the basis of watching a video - without being in that court and seeing the evidence given I wouldn't like to comment on the outcome with much certainty.

I read the MCN legal column, you know
____________________
'07 Tiger 1050

[jimster]

I still think that even though the biker was driving like an obnoxious hooligan it doesn't mean the driver wasn't also partly at fault.

I say this because after watching the video on my tiny phone screen looking out of the dashcam of a car some distance from the crash I am fairly confident that if I had been driving the crash car I would have:

(i) easily seen the bike;
(ii) easily heard the bike; and
(iii) not pulled out in front of the bike such that a crash became inevitable.

I'd be curious to see how the insurance fault % allocation ended up!
____________________
Current: Yamaha Diversion XJ900
Previous: Yamaha Diversion 600cc, Piaggio Zip 50cc, Honda CG125-W, Siamoto Caddy 50cc moped

[rpsmith79]

[jimster]

[Nute]

We only have the dash cam clip to judge it from but the chap with the dash cam could clearly see the bike coming before the car in front started its turn. The turning car should also therefore have seen the bike.

I don’t agree that it was the bikes fault. Irrespective of him going way to fast he has the right of way. The car should have seen him and didn’t.

His speed is compounding the problem and I don’t disagree with him being charged with UCAA or even dangerous driving. He’s driving like a twat.

[Pete.]

The speed's got everything to do with it. The bike's doing double the speed limit which means 3x the stopping distance. If the car could see far in excess of the 30mph stopping distance when they first checked then they could reasonably assume that the road would remain clear for the time then needed to cross that lane, because believe it or not they have several other checks to make not just looking out for potential speeding uninsured non-licensed idiots. The road ahead, the road behind, the road they are turning into, the pavement crossing that junction, the vehicle in front of him etc etc. The bike has only one place to look - where he's going and he made a piss poor job of that.

So let's say the bike is doing 30mph, that's 13.4m/sec. Stopping distance for that speed is quoted as 23metres or just about 2 carlengths plus gaps. Easy stopping for that situation, not that he'd need to because at 30mph there would be no car/bike interface because for there to be a crash he would have been in full view of the turning car for a long few seconds and much closer to boot. If he'd been doing 30mph the The bike ain't doing 30 though because at 0.09 seconds he's way up the road not even aligned with the 4th car in front of the turning car, which has pulled away from the three behind it. Probably 50 or 60 metres away from impact, which he covers in about 2.5 seconds which puts his speed between 50 and 60mph. Stopping distance for 60mph or 26 metres/sec is quoted as 73metres so he's fucked, he went from out of sight to impact little more than 2 seconds and in a lot less than his minimum stopping distance for that speed.
____________________
a.k.a 'Geri'

132.9mph off and walked away. Gear is good, gear is good, gear is very very good

[Nobby the Bastard]

[Polarbear]

[struan80]

The car should have made sure the road was clear. How fast was the motorcyclist going? I don't think it was that fast, breaking the speed limit definitely so at fault. The biker is an asshole with poor observation about what could be coming out of a junction. The car driver very poor obs for not seeing the biker. Racing incident.

[DaddyStu]

You've gotta give the car driver a chance to see you and react. Also, give your own brakes a chance to react.
____________________
Daddystu
Zontes 125-G1 (part-ex'd). Yamaha Tracer 700.

[Pete.]

[Nobby the Bastard]

Average speed of 67 mph. No doubt he was either braking like a motherfucker for most of those 3 seconds and likely well into triple figures when he comes into view or he's incredibly stupid if he didn't brake.


Either way the car driver was not at fault I any way.
____________________
trevor saxe-coburg-gotha:"Remember this simple rule - scooters are for men who like to feel the breeze on their huge, flapping cunt lips."
Sprint ST 1050