Motorcyclist filmed own death with head cam

[bumper]

Without reading all through this, it's all over the internet anyway with varying opinions. These were the views in our house.

I watched the full video, not the uncut one. I feel the biker was mostly to blame, his speed was the contributing factor of his death. He was on the wrong side of the road overtaking at very high speed, pulled out from behind a car and approached the junction at a mental speed. He didn't even appear to slow down. I've seen many bikes going over a ton and it's bloody quick. The car, even if they saw it, would've had a job to judge the distance that bike was covering. He played the game and lost. Shame the family have to suffer.

My wife's opinion. Why the hell didn't the car see him, it shouldn't have pulled out.

Two opposite opinions. Both are at fault but if he'd been doing 60, he'd probably still be here.

[sg37409]

Both are at fault but if he'd been doing 60, he'd probably still be here.

I take your point, but would you even do 60 through there, on a motorbike ?

My take is the biker is at fault. Some blame lies with the car, but going right back to the original posting, I'm frankly very surprised the car driver was prosecuted, even with the video.

Its a lapse of judgement, but not a momentary one.

[Regulator]

Both are at fault but if he'd been doing 60, he'd probably still be here.

I take your point, but would you even do 60 through there, on a motorbike ?

My take is the biker is at fault. Some blame lies with the car, but going right back to the original posting, I'm frankly very surprised the car driver was prosecuted, even with the video.

Its a lapse of judgement, but not a momentary one.

Same here.  I wonder whether there was a nother factor (e.g. using a mobile phone) in play in the decision to prosecute.

[bumper]

He should have slowed for the junction. At 60 or less, he would've possibly stayed behind the car he overtook. I still say that he caused the accident with massively excessive speed. Most bikers are wary of junctions and like eye contact with drivers etc. I'm surprised the driver of the car didn't sue his family for his dangerous driving!  Driver=careless biker=outright dangerous.

[Chris S]

Rather topically, I'll soon be attending a local SAC for "doing 35 in a 30 zone"  .

30 zones on busy trunk roads that are NSL everywhere else, means there's a big difference in speed when you enter them. If you obey the limits to the letter, you inevitably have impatient idiots all over your bumper, flashing, surging, and generally being twats. I'm not a fan of intimidation. But it was a fare cop - I was speeding.

But 97 on the (non-dualled) A47 approaching Norwich? Really? He was very silly - and paid a high price. My sympathy mostly resides with the driver of the car, which is a shame.

[ian]

Problem is, how on earth do you re-educate 30-40% of all motorists?

IME, its a lot closer to 100 % of all motorists than it is to 40 %.  Which is the problem.  Its totally normalized.

It used to be normal to have a several beers and drive home 'if you felt OK' and you'd chance it if you weren't. That wasn't so long ago. Whilst there's a small and stupid minority that still think this is OK, the majority of people I know wouldn't even have a single drink before driving home. Behaviour can change and the best way to change it is to make it socially unacceptable and enforce it. We don't tell drunk drivers they've been a bit naughty and not to do it again. We made the outcome explicit and brutal. You find out someone you know has been done for drunk driving and you don't feel any sympathy. We generally don't help drunk drivers find ways to get off. There's no special how-to-drink-less-before-you-drive course offered as an alternative to punishment.

The conversations about speeding all seem to revolve around the perceived rights of drivers. We let this dialogue persist. We stopped this monologue with drink driving. It wasn't about the right of drivers to have a few drinks and drive home. It wasn't about how safe they felt it was, how many times they'd done it without incident. The discussion instead focused on the victims, the gory outcomes. Speed behind the wheel is no less of a killer than drinking. If anything it's more ubiquitous. And that's not to mention the collateral effects of such an antisocial activity. The noise, the fear and difficulty of crossing a road etc. Even drivers don't like it, no one likes having some idiot aggressively tailgating you, but it happens all the time.

[levitator]

Another point.
I've been browsing Google Maps, and this is a point about half a mile back from where the crash occurred.
Notice the warning sign?
I reckon a lot of motorists totally ignore 'deer' warning signs; I take them at face value.  Although deer don't venture onto a busy main road very often, it can happen.  I've seen it happen.
Point: if a motorcyclist had slammed into a deer at 100mph, he would have stood no chance - nor would the deer.  And there'd be no-one else to blame: deer have no road-sense.
Another reason to rein in the speed-merchants.

[Jaded]

ian for Transport Secretary.

I'd be happy to carry his red box.

[Freya]

I have to say I disagree with the way this thread is going. People need to realise that it took two people to cause this fatality. It rather surprises me on a cycling thread that people seem to be so accommodating of a driver causing death by careless driving.
After all: driving along an A-Road with the sun in your eyes, squash a cyclist. 'That's a bit careless have a 3 point penalty.' Pull out on a cyclist which you didn't see because you carelessly are unable to notice anything which isn't in HiViz? Acquit that man! After all that's the sort of thing that might happen to anyone. Knock someone over because you haven't left enough room... 'Well that's a bit careless, but why would you ride a bike on such a busy road..Madness'
The point I'm making is that more people, especially cyclists, are killed by casual carelessness than by recklessly speeding motorbikes. Part of the reason is that 'just' being careless is far more acceptable than being dangerous. However, the victims remain no less dead.
So don't feel sorry for the driver whose actions were just as responsible for this as the guy who died. 7 seconds is a long, long time not to notice that the road straight ahead has vehicles on it. 100mph is stupidly fast, but it isn't faster than the speed of light. It doesn't take 5 seconds to make a turn with a car, it isn't an oil tanker. Sit in your car a try not to look ahead of you for 5 seconds. It ain't  easy. That is why the driver was prosecuted.

[bumper]

A cyclist wouldn't be traveling at 97mph

[Jaded]

Could be going 60+ though, and certainly wouldn't be expected to be doing that.

[bumper]

People seem to be unwilling to blame the bike rider because he's dead. They were both at fault but the bike caused it by speeding, excessively. If he was in a car it would've been his fault, why is a bike any different?

[Freya]

Why do people seem to think that because you apportion responsibility to both parties you are  absolving the biker of blame. It seems to me the reverse is happening. People are so outraged by his speed they are failing to see that they are excusing the failings of the driver.

[bumper]

I can see the fault of the driver. If the bike rider wasn't acting like a knob it wouldn't have happened. His actions were the catalyst for all of that followed.

No one will change my mind, my wife's tried. She thinks the car is at fault. The car had a responsibility to be driving with care and attention but when a bike is approaching doing almost a ton! That camera doesn't give an accurate impression of the speed.

If the bike was a chavved up Vauxhall Corsa, speeding and overtaking approaching a junction it would be the corsas fault.

[Hot Flatus]

At what speed would it ceased to have been the fault of the driver?

Light speed?

[bumper]

And condoning the bikes speed is fine?

If he passed you closely on your bike at that speed, would you be pleased?

What if a car had pulled out from that junction as he overtook and he had nowhere to go if the turning car had stayed in its place, he'd have been fucked. Speed kills, his film proves it whichever side of the fence you're on.

This is going round in circles, my mind is set. You can try to make it look like I'm defending the driver, I'm not. The riders actions caused it and he paid the ultimate price. The shit left is for his family, he should've thought a bit more about them as he approached the junction.

[Freya]

At what speed would it ceased to have been the fault of the driver?

Light speed?At the point at which a careful competent driver was unable to see the bikes approach. 7 seconds? Looking straight up the road with no impediment and still not notice anything coming? (Including the car which the bike had just overtaken?) next time you are in a car and come up to a filter lane, see if you can work out how long before your turn you direct your attention away from the road ahead. 7 seconds is a lifetime in those terms.

[Freya]

And condoning the bikes speed is fine?

You are doing it again. Who exactly is condoning the bike's speed?

[Reg.T]

They both made mistakes. The way I see it the car driver caused the accident, but the biker's speed made it a fatal accident. 97 in a 60 limit was stupid, but a speed limit does not mean it is safe to drive/ride at that speed. I don't think he was giving himself enough (any) time to make the necessary assessments and adjustments.

[bumper]

Instead of plucking snippets think about it. The speed was the main factor in this. If he wasn't speeding he'd be sitting at home with his family now. Why ignore the speed when that's what caused him to arrive at the junction with a shit driver waiting to turn in on him.

It was shit riding and shit driving but speeding is breaking the law. 97mph is taking the piss, especially at a junction with cars on it!

[Freya]

Driving without due care and attention is also breaking the law. Not looking where you are going is also taking the piss. & it is the cause of far more deaths (esp of cyclists) than motorcycles.

EDIT: you know that bit in the trial where they say. 'Although the cyclist was riding carefully along the road where there was in impeded visibility when my client didn't see him and ran him over. But at least he wasn't speeding'. Sticks in the craw, no?

[bumper]

I've already said that further up about the drivers due care etc. etc.

My mind is set, his speeding was the main cause. In fact he wasn't just speeding, he was absolutely tanking along at approaching track speed. He took his chance and met somebody who wasn't taking care whilst driving. He fucked up big time.

[Byronius Maximus]

I don't see what's to be gained by going round in circles arguing over who was at fault here. This is why I think the video doesn't really offer anything constructive; it only seems to result in people trying to determine who was at fault rather than thinking about what could be done by all road users to avoid these incidents.

[hellymedic]

I agree, Byron.

A wide, straight open road spells 'Wahey! Throttle max!' to many and it's hard to see how to reset the temptation.

I don't think this video would have much effect unless it, and similar videos, were shown regularly to drip, drip, drip at riders' and drivers' attitudes.

[bumper]

Speeding could be cured easily by limiting vehicles. How would the problem of being careless be solved? We all have lapses of concentration.