Potentially fatal near miss, big eye opener

PaudyW

PaudyW wrote: »

ps. if it was me on the bike, id have booted your car on the way past.

And if it had been me in the car i'd have drove after you and "open Door'd" you off your ****ing bike.:pac:

dr.fuzzenstein

Excellent, more flames to roast more popcorn.
This thread is going in the typical predictable fashion that every single thread seems to lately go in motors, I don't think there will be anything of any value or intelligence added here, so enjoy this picture.

krissovo

I did a blue light course in the UK a number of years ago and was thought a technique that I still use to this day. I would like to think it has minimized a number of these close calls, I still have the odd one every few years so it will not eliminate them.

Basically you describe the road conditions and perform a ongoing risk assessment. So say you are driving down a country road you describe the conditions in front, to the side and behind you like:

straight road 300 meters (no risk)
slight right hand bend with good views round (no risk)
Junction right side 400 meters.....risk of traffic pulling out (check mirrors, check road conditions for braking etc)....no traffic ...no traffic...car just pulled up (mentally prepare evasive maneuver)...car seen me (reduced risk).....

Rabidlamb

Right, OP back, try to get this wing mirror removal crack out of the way.
Here's the Google street view of the right turn.
The view I had is obviously lower than the Google camera.
In this photo you see cars undertaking as I described in my OP.
The Red Micra is pretty much where the passing car was.
You'll just make out 2 people on the opposite footpath in the distance.
That's where the bike was coming from only more favouring the centre of the road.
I never saw him & started my maneuver before jamming on my brakes at the last second.

Anan1

The pic may be misleading, but that doesn't look that tight to me. How fast was the bike going?

stimpson

Rabidlamb wrote: »

I never saw him & started my maneuver before jamming on my brakes at the last second.

Not sure if the streetview camera gives a reasonable view of the junction, but those people seem to be a long way off. Is it possible the biker was speeding? What's the limit there?

Alanstrainor

I was going to close this, but since the OP has returned to give some more info i'll leave it open.

Any more talk of smashing peoples property and posts will be deleted and infractions/bans will be handed out.

Rabidlamb

Anan1 wrote: »

The pic may be misleading, but that doesn't look that tight to me. How fast was the bike going?

Limit is 50kph through village.
It wasn't his speed, more that he was hidden from my view from the car in front.
Only became visible after he had crossed this car where the Red Micra is.

LLU

that gives a good insight. Would be interested to hear what you would do differently this time.

e.g:
- would you keep further left, rather than allow cars behind to undertake?
- would you ensure you pay extra attention to the area from which the bike was approaching? From what I can gather, this was somewhat out of your line of vision, making it easier to miss something there.
- would you complete the turn slower or faster?

Wolverine_1999

gbee wrote: »

I think that's a silly expression, I'm not getting out of bed because there could be an unexpected poisonous snake waiting to strike. And I don't live in Australia.

If we could expect the unexpected, we'd go nowhere and do nothing.

And tbh, a bike flying up the road is nothing unexpected ~ what can one do about it ~ I've had identical experience.

It's so common it's even on the road safety ads. Look twice as OP did is about it. He did it.

The science of the male vision is a scan every few seconds and a brain matched report, a male driver is trained to spot danger, anything he thinks is not dangerous is eliminated from his calculations.

A male driver is alerted to movement and can react very fast but at typical bike speeds the bike is not seen in the first instance and is not a threat. The next scan will reveal a foreign object [the bike] and this is prioritised for the next scan, the third scan detects fast moving object and identifies it as a bike and alerts the driver's auto response system to take action ~ usually breaking.

I'm sure I could find times from when the bike should be in the driver's vision [but ignored] from his first scan to the time the alert is issued by the brain, third or fourth scan of the scene.

If these times were overlaid on the speed the bike was doing we'd see how far the bike travelled before being seen. The driver gets a very short notice and the common theme is out of nowhere ~ bicycles do it too ~ they can be deemed to be travelling too slowly to be a danger and are often ignored by the brain.

That's a nice long Spiel, but the comment it completely true, you really do need to expect the unexpected whilst driving in Ireland. So many undereducated and badly taught drivers it's not even funny.

You can be the best driver in the world but it wouldn't matter if someone else makes a stupid manoevre on the road and puts your life in danger.

Always drive as if you are making up for everyone elses mistakes!

Wolverine_1999

Rabidlamb wrote: »

I never saw him & started my maneuver before jamming on my brakes at the last second.

Does sound like he floored it to be honest. Maybe he was trying to get out of there as fast as he could, doesn't look like the most friendliest of places

Anan1

Rabidlamb wrote: »

Limit is 50kph through village.
It wasn't his speed, more that he was hidden from my view from the car in front.
Only became visible after he had crossed this car where the Red Micra is.

I'm wondering were you too far left immediately prior to your turn? If you were out where the line should be then, unless he was on the wrong side of the road, the Micra couldn't have blocked your view.

Wolverine_1999

krissovo wrote: »

I did a blue light course in the UK a number of years ago and was thought a technique that I still use to this day. I would like to think it has minimized a number of these close calls, I still have the odd one every few years so it will not eliminate them.

Basically you describe the road conditions and perform a ongoing risk assessment. So say you are driving down a country road you describe the conditions in front, to the side and behind you like:

straight road 300 meters (no risk)
slight right hand bend with good views round (no risk)
Junction right side 400 meters.....risk of traffic pulling out (check mirrors, check road conditions for braking etc)....no traffic ...no traffic...car just pulled up (mentally prepare evasive maneuver)...car seen me (reduced risk).....

On a country road, I am usually in "prepare to stop" mode. Cows, sheep, tractor, oncoming boy racer on the wrong side of the road.. endless number of dangers!

Rabidlamb

Anan1 wrote: »

I'm wondering were you too far left immediately prior to your turn? If you were out where the line should be then, unless he was on the wrong side of the road, the Micra couldn't have blocked your view.

I've mulled this one over in my mind & I'm absolving myself from blame here.
I'm driving 15 years & never had a crash so I pride myself on being safe.
I reckon the fact I'd time to brake confirms this for me.
If I'd had a heavier right foot we were both in trouble.

krissovo

Wolverine_1999 wrote: »

On a country road, I am usually in "prepare to stop" mode. Cows, sheep, tractor, oncoming boy racer on the wrong side of the road.. endless number of dangers!

It applies to any road or situation, by describing what you are seeing/feeling and assessing the risk you are more alert to your surroundings and have a plan on reacting. Its particularly useful for routes that you use daily and enter an almost zombie state or "auto pilot" mode. It does go into greater detail like hedge lining the road, access to field, telegraph pole and so on

Anan1

Rabidlamb wrote: »

I've mulled this one over in my mind & I'm absolving myself from blame here.
I'm driving 15 years & never had a crash so I pride myself on being safe.
I reckon the fact I'd time to brake confirms this for me.
If I'd had a heavier right foot we were both in trouble.

I wouldn't argue with any of this - i'm just wondering how a car on your side of the road blocked your view of oncoming traffic? You say in your original post that the Micra was 'favouring the middle of the road', as was the oncoming bike. As I see it, there are four possible ways the Micra could have blocked your view of the bike:

i.) The Micra was over the centre line

ii.) The bike was over the centre line

iii.) The road curved to the left from where you were, putting the bike 'behind' the Micra

iv.) Your car was too far to the left when you started to turn.

Cuddlesworth

Rabidlamb wrote: »

Limit is 50kph through village.
It wasn't his speed, more that he was hidden from my view from the car in front.
Only became visible after he had crossed this car where the Red Micra is.

I'd say he was fairly booting it. To have difficulty braking from that distance coming up to a junction was irresponsible.

Anan1 wrote: »

I wouldn't argue with any of this - i'm just wondering how a car on your side of the road blocked your view of oncoming traffic? You say in your original post that the Micra was 'favouring the middle of the road', as was the oncoming bike. As I see it, there are four possible ways the Micra could have blocked your view of the bike:

i.) The Micra was over the centre line

ii.) The bike was over the centre line

iii.) The road curved to the left from where you were, putting the bike 'behind' the Micra

iv.) Your car was too far to the left when you started to turn.

From what I can gather on what the OP said, the car denoted by the Micra in the google maps picture was driving along close to the white line and at a appropriate distance and speed that the OP could pull out and easily make it. The OP went for the turn and upon a second glance realized that a bike had overtaken the car(who I presume was slowing down and at roughly the same distance as the Micra in the picture) and was now barreling towards a half turned car. The OP braked hard, the bike swung back in and went around him.

Keeping note that bikes stick to the center line a lot, as upon first glance head on just look like one of the headlights of a car behind a car.

Anan1

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

From what I can gather on what the OP said, the car denoted by the Micra in the google maps picture was driving along close to the white line and at a appropriate distance and speed that the OP could pull out and easily make it. The OP went for the turn and upon a second glance realized that a bike had overtaken the car(who I presume was slowing down and at roughly the same distance as the Micra in the picture) and was now barreling towards a half turned car. The OP braked hard, the bike swung back in and went around him.

My understanding was that the car denoted by the Micra was travelling in the same direction as, and therefore on the same side of the road as, the OP?

Rabidlamb

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

From what I can gather on what the OP said, the car denoted by the Micra in the google maps picture was driving along close to the white line and at a appropriate distance and speed that the OP could pull out and easily make it. The OP went for the turn and upon a second glance realized that a bike had overtaken the car(who I presume was slowing down and at roughly the same distance as the Micra in the picture) and was now barreling towards a half turned car. The OP braked hard, the bike swung back in and went around him.
.

Yep, that's exactly how it happened.
I'm just trying to inform people of a potential blind spot if you're being undertaken while waiting to make a right turn.

Rabidlamb

Anan1 wrote: »

My understanding was that the car denoted by the Micra was travelling in the same direction as, and therefore on the same side of the road as, the OP?

Also correct, it had passed be & gone on about 50 yards where it obscured the view of the oncoming bike.

Anan1

Rabidlamb wrote: »

Also correct, it had passed be & gone on about 50 yards where it obscured the view of the oncoming bike.

What i'm trying to figure out is how a car on your own side of the road blocked your view of an oncoming bike?

tmcw

I read it that Cuddlesworth is saying that the car was coming towards you, and Anan1 is saying that the car had undertaken you and was traveling away from you.

Were there 2 other cars and a motorbike?

tmcw

Anan1 wrote: »

What i'm trying to figure out is how a car on your own side of the road blocked your view of an oncoming bike?

It looks like the road does curve unfavourably, and at least in the google maps image, is badly marked, so poor road position for taking the junction could have been a factor. Or the OP is driving a left-hand drive car.

-Chris-

Maybe the Micra wasn't actually blocking the view, and the OP just didn't see the motorbike - it happens!

I don't know if we'll ever solve the mystery.

What we do know is that, since the OP did "look once, look twice" and wasn't accelerating away too aggressively, they were able to stop in time after finally spotting the biker.

I'm not saying there aren't lessons to be learned, but it's also possible to over-analyse things too...

Slig

Seriously, am I the only person that cant actually see the white line that everyone is talking about? I can see where it once might have been but it is definately not clearly defined. IMO its one of those cases where poor road condition plays a large part.
If there had been a turning lane with ghost islands in the centre of the road for drivers turning right the biker may have seen the situation sooner and been more cautious on their apporach.

TBH the only way to drive safely is to drive defensively, dont expect other drivers to know what they are doing, I'm sure if things had gone wrong in the OPs senario the biker would have gotten little consolation of the fact that the motorist was technically in the wrong.

Anan1

-Chris- wrote: »

Maybe the Micra wasn't actually blocking the view, and the OP just didn't see the motorbike - it happens!

I don't know if we'll ever solve the mystery.

If it had happened to me then i'd sooner spend the time dissecting it now than risk a repeat at some point in the future.:)

Slig wrote: »

Seriously, am I the only person that cant actually see the white line that everyone is talking about? I can see where it once might have been but it is definately not clearly defined. IMO its one of those cases where poor road condition plays a large part.
If there had been a turning lane with ghost islands in the centre of the road for drivers turning right the biker may have seen the situation sooner and been more cautious on their apporach.

It's very faded, which doesn't help. I suppose my point is that we all need to position ourselves so that we have a clear view of the road before crossing the opposite carriageway. Lines aside, if the road curves to the left then that means we need to be further over to the right to see clearly.

two wheels good

kerten wrote: »

In fact biker did everything he could to be seen which makes OP is faulty in this incident

But to be fair, this may happen anyone and motorbikes can react and stop instantly if they don't speed for their own safety.

So if the motorcyclist had collided with the car somehow he would have to share the blame on your (baseless) assumption that he was speeding?

Where do you get the notion that motorbikes "can react and stop instantly". Bikers cannae change the laws of physics.

This is the classic example of one of the most common causes for collisions involving motorcyclists. "Sorry mate, I didn't see you". Thankfully with a happy outcome.

Anan1

two wheels good wrote: »

So if the motorcyclist had collided with the car somehow he would have to share the blame on your (baseless) assumption that he was speeding?

Where do you get the notion that motorbikes "can react and stop instantly". Bikers cannae change the laws of physics.

I think you may have completely misunderstood kerten's post.:)

Bruthal

two wheels good wrote: »

This is the classic example of one of the most common causes for collisions involving motorcyclists. "Sorry mate, I didn't see you". Thankfully with a happy outcome.

The way some of them drive bikes does not assist other road users in seeing them though.

two wheels good

robbie7730 wrote: »

The way some of them drive bikes does not assist other road users in seeing them though.

I'm a fan of hi-viz and headlight on myself. But when you say "the way they drive bikes" do you mean something else? Am I paranoid or is this another insinuation that the biker must be speeding\dangerous?

kirving

I saw something similar recently, except it involved a bicycle and a car turning right.

At first, I thought it was totally the cars fault, for not looking properly before crossing the road. After the near miss(and the stupid cyclist kicking the guys car), I had a look around to see what else may have lead to it.

The cyclist was wearing bright blue shorts and t-shirt. It turns out that there was a trucke parked(off the road) which was pretty much exactly the same color as the cyclists clothing. After realising why it happened, I think that the cyclist could have been slightly more copped on as to why he couldn't be seen. Difficult to blame the car driver when I realised.

Anan1

two wheels good wrote: »

I'm a fan of hi-viz and headlight on myself. But when you say "the way they drive bikes" do you mean something else? Am I paranoid or is this another insinuation that the biker must be speeding\dangerous?

IMO there's a good bit of mutual distrust going on out there. I regularly see both good and appalling roadcraft from both motorists and bikers. From what i've heard so far, my impression is that the OP's positioning prior to turning right was not far enough over to the right to give them a clear view of the road. If that's the case then no amount of high-viz/lights would have helped.

Kevin Irving wrote: »

The cyclist was wearing bright blue shorts and t-shirt. It turns out that there was a trucke parked(off the road) which was pretty much exactly the same color as the cyclists clothing. After realising why it happened, I think that the cyclist could have been slightly more copped on as to why he couldn't be seen. Difficult to blame the car driver when I realised.

That makes perfect sense when you think about it, but how many drivers even use their headlights when they're coming out of the sun?:)

Bruthal

two wheels good wrote: »

I'm a fan of hi-viz and headlight on myself. But when you say "the way they drive bikes" do you mean something else? Am I paranoid or is this another insinuation that the bike must be speeding\dangerous?

No i mean in general, not about the speed of the bike in the OP as such, we dont know how fast he was going, but most seem to assume the OP is at fault, or almost was, but again, we dont know how fast the bike was moving in this case.

Im not saying all bikers drive irresponsibly, but some do, as do some car drivers of course. But a speeding biker will be harder to see, and will be hit harder in an accident.

two wheels good

robbie7730 wrote: »

[snip]... but most seem to assume the OP is at fault, or almost was, but again, we dont know how fast the bike was moving in this case.

Even if the biker had no hi-viz, no headlight on, and even if he was a few Kms above the speed limit, the driver is still at fault. These other details might be mitigating circumstances. Had an insurance company tried to share the blame it would have been grossly unfair.

PS As already mentioned: thanks to OP for raising the topic. A useful lesson

kirving

Anan1 wrote: »

That makes perfect sense when you think about it, but how many drivers even use their headlights when they're coming out of the sun?:)

Exactly, and if the cyclist had a light it probably wouldn't have been so close but it just takes something like that to get someone killed. That extra awarness is something that is very diffiult to test for anyway. Sometimes its very difficult to see situaions like above developing.

Edit, in the OP's situation, should the biker not have seen that the OP was travelling slowly an anticipated that he could make a right turn?

Bruthal

two wheels good wrote: »

and even if he was a few Kms above the speed limit, the driver is still at fault.

What if the biker was going 50kph above the limit? All what if`s i know, but we dont know, do we? The OP indicated the bike was probably not too fast, but he seen the bike very late, and after heavy braking i think he said.

Had an insurance company tried to share the blame it would have been grossly unfair.

It depends on the actual facts as to how fair it is. Do you know the facts beyond doubt here? If the biker was going within the limit and the OP had turned across him, then a shared claim would be unfair. But what if the biker was going 100kph in a 50 zone, still as unfair then?

Im sure many claims decisions are grossly unfair throughout all motoring types, just this morning on the M50 i seen the best bit of motorbike merging i can remember going onto that road, shocking lunatic driving, but i bet he is a mirror breaker or car kicker too when a car wrongly gets in his way and annoys him.

No matter how good any drivers here think they are, some time there will be something they dont see, even if the said drivers are as good as they think they are. Will they then come on and post about it? The point being, not every single moment can any driver be as alert and observant as they are capable of being, but they can say here that they can be, and/or tell others they should be.

stimpson

If the OP posts the link to google maps we can easily calculate how far the biker would have traveled at 50kph

Rabidlamb

stimpson wrote: »

If the OP posts the link to google maps we can easily calculate how far the biker would have traveled at 50kph

http://maps.google.ie/maps?hl=en&ll=52.914919,-6.836672&spn=0.003616,0.010986&t=m&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=52.915411,-6.837556&panoid=xR7QhHr7afNB4dEB4hrbyg&cbp=12,187,,0,16.21

I wouldn't over-analyse it, we don't go around perceiving things like robots.
Whether he was doing 100kph or 50kph was irrelevant cause at he moment I checked he was behind the car in front.

Rabidlamb

Slig wrote: »

Seriously, am I the only person that cant actually see the white line that everyone is talking about? I can see where it once might have been but it is definately not clearly defined.

Google car went through during resurfacing, there's a line there now just broken for the right turn.

keithclancy

We'll never know really, unless the OP is WB Yeats he'll never explain it well enough without some clown misunderstanding it and saying he should have checked 360 degrees around him while watching the road surface for pot holes.

Happens regularly to me, Biker sits in behind you, right in your blind spot, then whips out and boots it, sign of inexperience IMO.

Experienced biker will sit further back, so you can see them in your rear view (i.e. if you can't see me, I can't see you) and will leave themselves plenty of side room to overtake, plus will complete the whole thing as fast as they can.

If I see a Biker these days weaving all over the place behind me I'll let them overtake, have seen too many close calls where they *just* make it back in after overtaking on a blind bend.

But yeah, Bikes are small, its their Job to make themselves visible with their road positioning. Hi-Vis vest is useless if someone can't see it.

Same goes when your behind a truck, when his reversing lights come on, assume he can't see you and MOVE.

Jimmy Bottlehead

keithclancy wrote: »

We'll never know really, unless the OP is WB Yeats he'll never explain it well enough...

Bit off-topic, but how could Yeats have explained it any better?

keithclancy

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

Bit off-topic, but how could Yeats have explained it any better?

People that read Yeats contemplate the meaning of his writing but not what actually happened.

I've never seen someone reading one of his books shouting "Thats not what happened .. FUUUU!!!" :P

Anan1

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Edit, in the OP's situation, should the biker not have seen that the OP was travelling slowly an anticipated that he could make a right turn?

If the OP's positioning was off to the left then the biker's view of the OP would also have been blocked by the Micra.

Cuddlesworth

Anan1 wrote: »

If the OP's positioning was off to the left then the biker's view of the OP would also have been blocked by the Micra.

Doubtful, you can see over a micra on 90% of bikes if your not tucked in close to the tank. And your only doing that if your belting along.

LLU

this has certainly been an educational and informative thread and again I'd say fair play to the OP for telling the story, at the risk of getting some stick for telling it. It's genuinely made me more cautious at junctions this past few days, hopefully I'm not the only one and that habit won't wear off.

Oh - and I've also started retracting my wing mirrors as I approach junctions:D.

Blazer

very easy thing to happen...the micra obscures a good portion of the road if you're behind it and especially against oncoming traffic.
Sorry op but I think the fault mainly lies with you...you should have allowed the car in front of you to proceed further up the road till you could see at least 400 yards of it. that's if I'm getting you right..if not my apologies..

There's a similar turn off near me..
If you're turning right the cars who undertake you to continue on actually block your view of all incoming traffic. Some people chance their arms but in fairness you can only see about 50m or so and cut it very fine.
Safest thing to do is let all the cars undertaking you go at least 200 yards further on until you've a clear field of vision and then turn right.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Mungret,+Ireland&hl=en&ll=52.635827,-8.695261&spn=0.002212,0.002384&sll=41.890063,12.492549&sspn=0.007675,0.004769&vpsrc=6&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=52.635827,-8.695261&panoid=iJaNob0eT1osczJTgHHV4A&cbp=12,90.15,,0,0

stimpson

So based on google earth (see attachment), I reckon those people are 105m away.

50km/h is about 13.8 m/s, so it would have taken about 7.5 seconds to cover the distance at the speed limit. More than enough time to complete the turn IMHO.

Bruthal

stimpson wrote: »

So based on google earth (see attachment), I reckon those people are 105m away.

50km/h is about 13.8 m/s, so it would have taken about 7.5 seconds to cover the distance at the speed limit. More than enough time to complete the turn IMHO.

What method did you use to calculate the bikes speed?

Although you could be right, some people dont think they can make such a turn when a car is oncoming but is on the horizon.

stimpson

robbie7730 wrote: »

What method did you use to calculate the bikes speed?

Although you could be right, some people dont think they can make such a turn when a car is oncoming but is on the horizon.

I didn't - I used the speed limit - 50 kph.

Bruthal

keithclancy wrote: »

I've never seen someone reading one of his books shouting "Thats not what happened .. FUUUU!!!" :P

When was the last time you seen one of his writings used as evidence in a road accident investigation?