New British Road Safety Vid (Distressing Scenes)

thomasm

Other people make mistakes. This excellent New Zealand road safety add shows this really well
http://youtu.be/bvLaTupw-hk

Canis Lupus

Rabbo wrote: »

It kinda is. Its not good enough to just tell people to be careful or drive slower. It is no harm for people to be judgemental of others driving and to learn from others mistakes.

In my mind the biker was primarily at fault, he was travelling way too fast to allow for the unexpected. A small error by another roaduser then resulted in a fatal crash.

Anyone on the road will see drivers and road users doing incredibly stupid things on a daily basis. People need to adjust their driving with the expectation that the roadusers around you will inevitably do something stupid. Always expect the unexpected.

I guess I feel that a lot of people have basically watched the video, decided the motorbike was going to fast and switched off. We all need to be responsible drivers is all in trying to get across.

Dempsey

mike_ie wrote: »

I think it would be interesting to change the scenario slightly and see what people's reactions would be. Imagine for one minute, if he'd been going at 97mph and had hit a pedestrian, who would you hold responsible then? He was a man that enjoyed the thrill of speed, and his actions were reckless (overtaking at speed, and 5 seconds before impact he had one hand on the handlebars) and they caught up with him.

His death a terrible waste and it's a tragedy for his family and the driver of the other car, who has to live with it. But the blame lies firmly with him. And I say that as a motorbike rider myself.

A Pedestrian walking out in front of traffic without looking?

Obviously the person on the motorbike would get the blame regardless but the pedestrian should be up for the Darwin Award.

Sweet Rose

Just converted 97mph to kilometres and he was doing a whopping 156.1kph. That is crazy, just absolutely ridiculous for such a busy road too.The video is chilling. Split second crash. I hate seeing videos like that but it does shock you into driving better at the end of the day.

Kidchameleon

RustyNut wrote: »

What possible motivation would an independent witness have to lie during an investigation about a fatal collision?

Ask the person in here who said the car didn't indicate. There's absolutely no way of knowing from watching the video. People make this sh*t up, makes them feel important or something.

Packrat

pbear007 wrote: »

Sickening to think that people would even 'High Horse' in this thread .Car driver is by far the most responsible for accident .

No, what's fcuking sickening is seeing bikers try to justify that (60% over the limit) speed, and avert the blame from the biker simply because they are bikers, and feel under attack. :rolleyes:

It's this simple: One made an UNINTENTIONAL mistake. The other CHOSE to drive at that speed. Now who is more at fault.

Every second biker I see every fcuking day is travelling at speeds where they cannot stop or protect themselves or others when things go wrong.

Obey the fcuking law of the land or fcuk off and stop whining when one of your brethren hops his head off something. :mad:

Dempsey

Packrat wrote: »

No, what's fcuking sickening is seeing bikers try to justify that (60% over the limit) speed, and avert the blame from the biker simply because they are bikers, and feel under attack. :rolleyes:

It's this simple: One made an UNINTENTIONAL mistake. The other CHOSE to drive at that speed. Now who is more at fault.

Every second biker I see every fcuking day is travelling at speeds where they cannot stop or protect themselves or others when things go wrong.

Obey the fcuking law of the land or fcuk off and stop whining when one of your brethren hops his head off something. :mad:

The driver broke the law as well and was done for careless driving.

Wibbs

Dempsey wrote: »

The driver broke the law as well and was done for careless driving.

He was and rightly, but IMHO harshly. The video is horrible, but the impact itself doesn't really come across. Check out the photo of the car afterwards The whole front end is damn near torn off. Now the car was moving from stationary, so maybe 5-10 mph at impact? That pic illustrates the sheer energy involved carried by the bike's speed. As for that speed itself? Well if he had been doing 50 odd MPH he would have been at least 60 or more feet behind and chances are the car would have crossed the junction before he got to it, even if the driver hadn't see him.

Dempsey

Wibbs wrote: »

He was and rightly, but IMHO harshly. The video is horrible, but the impact itself doesn't really come across. Check out the photo of the car afterwards The whole front end is damn near torn off. Now the car was moving from stationary, so maybe 5-10 mph at impact? That pic illustrates the sheer energy involved carried by the bike's speed. As for that speed itself? Well if he had been doing 50 odd MPH he would have been at least 60 or more feet behind and chances are the car would have crossed the junction before he got to it, even if the driver hadn't see him.

Yes, the bike was speeding but the driver took a stupid risk aswell. 2 wrongs dont make a right. A speeding bike/motorist doesnt negate or minimise the drivers responsibility to make sure there is nothing coming in the opposite direction.

Alot of people in this thread have missed the point completely. All drivers need to stop taking stupid risks, be it speed or concentration/observation. This idea that someone should take all of the blame because he was more in the wrong than the other mentality needs to change. Reducing speed alone isnt going to prevent accidents when there are drivers without the proper observation skills and others that see the traffic coming in the opposite direction and dart out anyways. Plenty of other examples of both parties ignoring the rules of the road but lets stick with this type of problem.

I drive the N17 everyday and there are drivers jumping out at junctions everywhere. I've lost count of the amount of times, in the last 6 months, where I have to put on the brakes to avoid a collision. I can anticipate stupidity very well. In 1 r 2 cases, its been the driver not aware of their surroundings but most of the time its been people that see the car coming but do it anyways and they sometimes dont judge what they are doing and they are stopped in the middle of the road waiting for someone to let them into traffic at the opposite side.

Who'd you be blaming in those scenarios? I know I'd be up in court for poor observation and I'd expect the other driver to be up for careless driving. Its proper order because this idea that one person, i.e. the person "most in the wrong" should take all the blame is a highly flawed argument and its this mentality means people will continue to do stupid stuff on the roads.

Alkers

Wibbs wrote: »

As for that speed itself? Well if he had been doing 50 odd MPH he would have been at least 60 or more feet behind and chances are the car would have crossed the junction before he got to it, even if the driver hadn't see him.

Or if he was doing 150mph he would have been well passed the car by the time it pulled out...

The point you're trying to make would be valid if the driver had seen the bike and incorrectly judged that they had time to complete the manoeuvre. Unfortunately here, the driver didn't even look, so the speed the bike was going is largely irrelevant.

Chancer3001

Can't believe people fully blaming the biker.

It was the driver who made the biggest mistake. Drove straight across his side of the road.

Obviously have he was speeding, but he was so close when the driver pulled across, he'd have crashed even at 40

Kidchameleon

Simona1986 wrote: »

Unfortunately here, the driver didn't even look, so the speed the bike was going is largely irrelevant.

When did the driver say he didn't look? I cant seem to find a source for this claim. He said he "didn't see" the bike, which is a completely different thing to not bothering to look. Many many people would have trouble noticing a feckin lunatic speeding towards them at 150+ kph!

myshirt

Do we know if it was a male or female driver of the car?

alan partridge aha

I'd be very slow to blame the car driver, at the speed of the bike he is travelling over 43mtrs per second. That's crazy!!!

punisher5112

The driver of the car should not have proceeded on their turn untill the road was clear obviously they were looking for cars and not a bike as the mind/brain in some well most doesn't register smaller objects such as bikes/motorbikes.

Yes we all know biker was speeding but the car driver wasn't watching the road ahead and that is obvious as David didn't make it.

Them clio front ends are mostly plastic and probably would look very similar even if he was doing 60mph.

Next time you see 1 press the front wing its plastic and will move inwards with pressure applied.


All road users need to start respecting each other in cluding cyclists.

The road is a dangerous place and needs full concentration not to be half asleep, texting, eating, shaving, applying makeup, drinking etc etc...


Sure I was in a crash 2 days ago on a roundabout in a car lovely and bright dipped lights on as always and the woman looked through my car and only was looking at what was behind me so she just pulled staright out never seeing me.

She was so shocked she was shaking for more then 30 mins and all because she didn't look where she was going and also wanted to go all the way around a 2 lane roundabout on the wrong lane....

alan partridge aha

I wonder was the driver asked had he/she an issue with the video been released. I feel really sorry for them, yes they are partly to blame but that bike was covering ground at a phenomenal rate.

indigo twist

alan partridge aha wrote: »

I wonder was the driver asked had he/she an issue with the video been released. I feel really sorry for them, yes they are partly to blame but that bike was covering ground at a phenomenal rate.

I think most drivers involved in an incident like that would be only too happy to do anything they could to raise awareness of the factors leading to the death, in the hope of maybe preventing similar incidents in the future.

Sand

You can only praise the family for releasing the tape - certainly its a risk for them that they may be having a good day, and then come across the video being played and bring back a lot of bad memories. It also allows a lot of random strangers, like ourselves, to criticise their son which will be tough to hear. It is very brave for them to accept that in the hope that random strangers will learn, and perhaps save a life.

I think both the biker and driver were to blame. I think the biker is primarily at fault - he was driving at 100mph, way over the speed limit. Worse, he was going to drive through a junction at 100mph: traffic could have come from right or left, or as happened turned into his path. And he was going to go 100mph through the junction with a car ahead indicating to turn into his path.

Everyone on the road makes mistakes and makes errors - breaching the speed limit and driving like a maniac on the assumption that everyone else will drive flawlessly is almost suicidal.

The driver is also at fault - turning like that, with oncoming traffic (even without the bike, there was that car) was being reckless. That said, he would have needed superhuman vision and reaction time to pick out the biker closing at those speeds: The biker passes the car at 2:49. Its difficult to tell, but the driver makes the decision to pull out at somewhere around 2:51. So the driver has got about 2 seconds to spot the biker approaching at 100mph, process it and correct his decision. The biker only spots the car turning into his path at 2:53 and only has time to shout before the impact, let alone evade.

A lot of card and "magic" tricks work on the principle that the human brain is always a few split seconds behind - it takes time for it to process what you see. Going at that speed gives everyone less time to realise what is happening and react correctly.

alan partridge aha

Lucas Castroman wrote: »

Idiot was going too fast, stupidity is terminal in some cases.

indigo twist wrote: »

I think most drivers involved in an incident like that would be only too happy to do anything they could to raise awareness of the factors leading to the death, in the hope of maybe preventing similar incidents in the future.

Well whether the would or wouldn't, I hope they were asked as they are the one left deal with the tragedy.

Alkers

Sand wrote: »

That said, he would have needed superhuman vision and reaction time to pick out the biker closing at those speeds: The biker passes the car at 2:49. Its difficult to tell, but the driver makes the decision to pull out at somewhere around 2:51. So the driver has got about 2 seconds to spot the biker approaching at 100mph, process it and correct his decision. The biker only spots the car turning into his path at 2:53 and only has time to shout before the impact, let alone evade.

From:http://www.derehamtimes.co.uk/news/inquest_hears_how_motorcyclist_david_holmes_was_travelling_at_97_miles_per_hour_down_the_a47_at_honingham_when_he_crashed_with_a_turning_car_1_3649858

"Speaking at yesterday’s inquest, PC Graham Brooks said both motorists would have been in each other’s available view for seven seconds before impact."

"PC Brooks said there was no reason why the driver of the Clio, Benjamin Austin, had failed to see Mr Holmes approaching on his bike.

He said: “Witnesses behind Mr Austin say they had seen it and were aware of its presence.”

Austin pleaded guilty in April to causing death by careless driving, admitting he had not seen Mr Holmes."

alan partridge aha

7 sec = 300mtrs+ and that is a fact.

Kidchameleon

From the motorbikes perspective in the video, I estimate there are at most 3 seconds where you can even make out the car. That cop obviously has an agenda just like the rest of the "poor motor cyclist" brigade.

* I understand the video footage is not as good as being there.

con___manx1

Kidchameleon wrote: »

When did the driver say he didn't look? I cant seem to find a source for this claim. He said he "didn't see" the bike, which is a completely different thing to not bothering to look. Many many people would have trouble noticing a feckin lunatic speeding towards them at 150+ kph!

The driver admitted not seeing the bike or a car right behind the motorcyclist. If he did look he needs to get his eyes ckcked. Motor bike was doing 97k

Kidchameleon

con___manx1 wrote: »

The driver admitted not seeing the bike or a car right behind the motorcyclist. If he did look he needs to get his eyes ckcked. Motor bike was doing 97k

He was doing 97mph, which is about 156k :rolleyes:

Very hard to see something moving at that speed, especially if its coming straight at you, that's why speed limits were invented, especially around junctions.

Wibbs

Simona1986 wrote: »

"PC Brooks said there was no reason why the driver of the Clio, Benjamin Austin, had failed to see Mr Holmes approaching on his bike.

I can think of a couple of reasons. The brain constantly sees things that don't get passed along to the conscious mind. For good reason because if you observed everything in the world unflitered you'd quickly go batshít crazy. They only get passed up to the conscious brain when seen as interesting or a threat. Given Mr Austin was looking in the same direction as the approaching motorbike(and cars) at some level he did "see" it, but his brain didn't register it as a threat so didn't pass it along to the "oh ****!" part of his brain. If you watch Mr Holmes he doesn't register the car moving into his path until quite late. His brain likely "saw" it but didn't see it as a threat and that's a car. An object with a much bigger volume as a target. A bike is a lot smaller of an object and when it's traveling at a closing speed of 100MPH(150Kph for the kidz), it's actually quite easy to see and fcuking tragic with it that he didn't see him approach.

As for the car that was approaching? The bike passed that way before it was going to be a threat to Austin in his car. Chances are he saw the car(or his brain did) and wrote it off as a non threat. Mr Holmes passing the car may have well conflated the two objects in his conscious mind, so disregarded both.

He said: “Witnesses behind Mr Austin say they had seen it and were aware of its presence.”

Maikommi said earlier he'd call them liars, I dunno. I would say it's very much a case of wisdom after the event. Actually... I would like M call them liars. Observe this photo fractions of a second before the tragedy. The nearest car on the approaching side of the road is at least 200 yards(metres for the kidz) away. The motorbike wouldn't have even registered with them. It was out of their field of view unless they make a habit of driving while looking at the oncoming lane.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

From the motorbikes perspective in the video, I estimate there are at most 3 seconds where you can even make out the car. That cop obviously has an agenda just like the rest of the "poor motor cyclist" brigade.

* I understand the video footage is not as good as being there.

More than that, the video footage is actually better. For a start it's a GoPro so is stabilised, whereas someone in a motorbike helmet traveling at speed with all the vibration involved isn't. Secondly it's got a better visual acuity than the Mark 1 Human Eyeball(especially at that speed) and thirdly we are all watching the video knowing something is about to happen so we're on higher brain alert. In effect the video is hyperreality.

con___manx1 wrote: »

The driver admitted not seeing the bike or a car right behind the motorcyclist. If he did look he needs to get his eyes ckcked. Motor bike was doing 97k

As has been pointed out to you he was doing nigh on twice that speed in KPH. Huge difference. Put it another way and a way you wished on the driver earlier in the thread. If it had been a truck doing 100 miles per hour on that road, do you think the Clio driver would have seen him? Do you think that if it was a truck doing the ton on a secondary road while passing all and sundry that we'd have any sympathy for the driver of said truck? Like hell we would.




TL;DR? If you're a biker you're in danger and above around 50mph niether you nor the physics of the bike can avoid trouble if it comes up. That's physiology and physics. End of. You're smaller, so less likely to be seen, even with the best intentions of other road users, so plan ahead and slow the fúck down in any environment that has crossing traffic.

alan partridge aha

Wibbs wrote: »

I can think of a couple of reasons. The brain constantly sees things that don't get passed along to the conscious mind. For good reason because if you observed everything in the world unflitered you'd quickly go batshít crazy. They only get passed up to the conscious brain when seen as interesting or a threat. Given Mr Austin was looking in the same direction as the approaching motorbike(and cars) at some level he did "see" it, but his brain didn't register it as a threat so didn't pass it along to the "oh ****!" part of his brain. If you watch Mr Holmes he doesn't register the car moving into his path until quite late. His brain likely "saw" it but didn't see it as a threat and that's a car. An object with a much bigger volume as a target. A bike is a lot smaller of an object and when it's traveling at a closing speed of 100MPH(150Kph for the kidz), it's actually quite easy to see and fcuking tragic with it that he didn't see him approach.

As for the car that was approaching? The bike passed that way before it was going to be a threat to Austin in his car. Chances are he saw the car(or his brain did) and wrote it off as a non threat. Mr Holmes passing the car may have well conflated the two objects in his conscious mind, so disregarded both.

Maikommi said earlier he'd call them liars, I dunno. I would say it's very much a case of wisdom after the event. Actually... I would like M call them liars. Observe this photo fractions of a second before the tragedy. The nearest car on the approaching side of the road is at least 200 yards(metres for the kidz) away. The motorbike wouldn't have even registered with them. It was out of their field of view unless they make a habit of driving while looking at the oncoming lane.


More than that, the video footage is actually better. For a start it's a GoPro so is stabilised, whereas someone in a motorbike helmet traveling at speed with all the vibration involved isn't. Secondly it's got a better visual acuity than the Mark 1 Human Eyeball(especially at that speed) and thirdly we are all watching the video knowing something is about to happen so we're on higher brain alert. In effect the video is hyperreality.

As has been pointed out to you he was doing nigh on twice that speed in KPH. Huge difference. Put it another way and a way you wished on the driver earlier in the thread. If it had been a truck doing 100 miles per hour on that road, do you think the Clio driver would have seen him? Do you think that if it was a truck doing the ton on a secondary road while passing all and sundry that we'd have any sympathy for the driver of said truck? Like hell we would.




TL;DR? If you're a biker you're in danger and above around 50mph niether you nor the physics of the bike can avoid trouble if it comes up. That's physiology and physics. End of. You're smaller, so less likely to be seen, even with the best intentions of other road users, so plan ahead and slow the fúck down in any environment that has crossing traffic.

+1000000

Packrat

I don't think anyone would argue that the car driver was to an extent responsible, or that he shouldn't have received a ban & fine for his actions. That's just what happens when you make a mistake which causes or contributes to a death. The fact that it was just that, a mistake, or a lapse of concentration doesent really absolve you.
However, equally, nobody but an absolute moron would argue that it was premeditated or intentional.

Now, to the motorcyclist: His speeding also contributed to the accident, and this WAS premeditated, intentional AND habitual. The fact that he paid the ultimate price for his stupidity does not absolve him in any way for the blame.

If the car hadn't crossed in front of the bike, it wouldn't have happened. Period.

But also if the bike was doing say 57 or even 60 (has anyone resolved what the limit ACTUALLY was) then in my humble opinion, any biker worth his licence would have been able to avoid it or stop, therefore the accident wouldn't have happened either. Period.

The blind defence of the biker is just other bikers trying to excuse their own dangerous speeding habits without actually owning them as Makikomi at least did.

A month or two ago, we had in this forum, a biker admit to driving on a provisional and when that expired on nothing, and thus uninsured as well for approximately 25 years. It was and I quote "the done thing" He failed his test (in my opinion anyone who fails a test shouldn't be on the road without an instructor) and just never did another one. The mind boggles.

Maybe it's time for a review of speed limits for bikes or at least for some enforcement of those which exist and make them actually learn the rules of the road that the rest of us have to.
One idea might be to fit road speed limiters on them set at the max (120kph) speed permitted in the state.

alan partridge aha

The biker was like a ticking time bomb, eventually it's going to blow and someone was going to die.

Spook_ie

Packrat wrote: »

I don't think anyone would argue that the car driver was to an extent responsible, or that he shouldn't have received a ban & fine for his actions. That's just what happens when you make a mistake which causes or contributes to a death. The fact that it was just that, a mistake, or a lapse of concentration doesent really absolve you.
However, equally, nobody but an absolute moron would argue that it was premeditated or intentional.

Now, to the motorcyclist: His speeding also contributed to the accident, and this WAS premeditated, intentional AND habitual. The fact that he paid the ultimate price for his stupidity does not absolve him in any way for the blame.

If the car hadn't crossed in front of the bike, it wouldn't have happened. Period.

But also if the bike was doing say 57 or even 60 (has anyone resolved what the limit ACTUALLY was) then in my humble opinion, any biker worth his licence would have been able to avoid it or stop, therefore the accident wouldn't have happened either. Period.

The blind defence of the biker is just other bikers trying to excuse their own dangerous speeding habits without actually owning them as Makikomi at least did.

A month or two ago, we had in this forum, a biker admit to driving on a provisional and when that expired on nothing, and thus uninsured as well for approximately 25 years. It was and I quote "the done thing" He failed his test (in my opinion anyone who fails a test shouldn't be on the road without an instructor) and just never did another one. The mind boggles.

Maybe it's time for a review of speed limits for bikes or at least for some enforcement of those which exist and make them actually learn the rules of the road that the rest of us have to.
One idea might be to fit road speed limiters on them set at the max (120kph) speed permitted in the state.

Speaking at yesterday’s inquest, PC Graham Brooks said both motorists would have been in each other’s available view for seven seconds before impact.

PC Brooks said: “The average speed of the motorcycle was almost 97 miles an hour, well above the 60 mile per hour limit.”

He said the footage showed Mr Holmes had made no obvious acknowledgement of his speed and showed a disregard for his own safety.

He said: “If the Yamaha had been driving at 60 miles per hour the collision could have been avoided.”

PC Brooks said there was no reason why the driver of the Clio, Benjamin Austin, had failed to see Mr Holmes approaching on his bike.

He said: “Witnesses behind Mr Austin say they had seen it and were aware of its presence.”

Austin pleaded guilty in April to causing death by careless driving, admitting he had not seen Mr Holmes.

Assistant coroner Johanna Thompson said Mr Holmes had lost control and collided with the Clio.

The limit is 60 mph, the traffic officer reckons he would probably have been able to dodge the bullet at the speed limit, fact driver did pull across which constitutes careless/dangerous driving, fact the biker was speeding which if had been caught by the police would have constituted careless/dangerous driving

Bigus

con___manx1 wrote: »

The car driver was not paying attention to the road and killed somebody. That's dangerous driving pure and simple. I hope the driver of that car gets at least a 5 or 10 year driving ban for being such a careless idiot. The road was straight and you could have seen that bike a mile away. I don't no about you but I don't have too many lapse of concentration while Turing off secondary roads . It's a pity it was a motor bike and not a lorry that hit that idiot driver.

A lorry couldn't approach the driver at 97 mph or 156.1 kmh .

Bikers fault IMHO

Cienciano

Packrat wrote: »

Maybe it's time for a review of speed limits for bikes or at least for some enforcement of those which exist and make them actually learn the rules of the road that the rest of us have to.
One idea might be to fit road speed limiters on them set at the max (120kph) speed permitted in the state.

What do you mean make them learn the rules of the road? You think bikers don't have to do tests, learn ROTR or something?
Bikers know the dangers, if you want speed limiters on your own vehicle, go ahead. But don't try and impose stupid restrictions on other road users.

--LOS--

I don't know how anyone can say the driver should have seen him, I couldn't even tell what happened the first time I watched the vid since it all happened so fast. Christ he was driving like he was in a game!

Packrat

Cienciano wrote: »

What do you mean make them learn the rules of the road? You think bikers don't have to do tests, learn ROTR or something?
Bikers know the dangers, if you want speed limiters on your own vehicle, go ahead. But don't try and impose stupid restrictions on other road users.

I meant as in this case http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057261223&page=11

I drive a speed limited vehicle all day every day thanks.

It wouldn't be a stupid restriction, it would restrict a group of road users who show themselves time and time again to be unable to obey the law of the fcuking land by forcing them to at least obey the outside limit of speed allowed here.

Why would you object to this restriction unless you routinely break the law?

If bikers want to be treated like adults, then act like adults.

Wibbs

Cienciano wrote: »

What do you mean make them learn the rules of the road? You think bikers don't have to do tests, learn ROTR or something?
Bikers know the dangers, if you want speed limiters on your own vehicle, go ahead. But don't try and impose stupid restrictions on other road users.

Cool and in many ways I'm with you on that, but then accept that people are going to die above certain speeds on a conveyance that is far less likely to be seen and accounted for in the real world and the driver is far more likely to be badly injured of killed. Like I said if we swap out this tragedy for a car or a truck doing double the speed limit on a public road while weaving through traffic the sympathy would drop to fúck all. Why are we giving bikes more of a "free ride"? Mostly because we all know they're more vulnerable so feel more sympathy.

Don't get me wrong, though I drive like a granny these days(mostly), I have had a my own share of stupid driving at speed in a car*. Mea culpa. However I learned early on that physics and personal talent can quickly run out at those same speeds, never mind the physics and talent of others I share the road with, so I slowed the fcuk down in areas where I knew shít could get real very quickly. How someone knocking on the door of middle age after two decades of driving anything didn't come to a similar conclusion is beyond me TBH. It seems like he had been "lucky" up until that tragedy, but didn't learn from it.



*even these days, though rarely enough, me being well within middle age and well beyond where I should know better, I will sometimes drive at 9/10ths in environments I feel are safer to do so. Indeed within the last 10 days for reasons of needing to do it to clear my head, I went absolutely fcuking hell for leather, real licence losing time on a relatively close by mountain road, at times going well over the speed limit. However, even in my midlife crisis stupidity I chose an environment where if something does go wrong I'm gonna be the only casualty involved. And maybe a sheep.

Cienciano

Packrat wrote: »

I meant as in this case http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057261223&page=11

I drive a speed limited vehicle all day every day thanks.

It wouldn't be a stupid restriction, it would restrict a group of road users who show themselves time and time again to be unable to obey the law of the fcuking land by forcing them to at least obey the outside limit of speed allowed here.

Why would you object to this restriction unless you routinely break the law?

If bikers want to be treated like adults, then act like adults.

Tell me, what group of drivers obey the rules of the road all the time? Don't try and pretend you don't routinely break ROTR, because every road user does.

Wibbs wrote: »

Cool and in many ways I'm with you on that, but then accept that people are going to die above certain speeds on a conveyance that is far less likely to be seen and accounted for in the real world and the driver is far more likely to be badly injured of killed. Like I said if we swap out this tragedy for a car or a truck doing double the speed limit on a public road while weaving through traffic the sympathy would drop to fúck all. Why are we giving bikes more of a "free ride"? Mostly because we all know they're more vulnerable so feel more sympathy.

Don't get me wrong, though I drive like a granny these days(mostly), I have had a my own share of stupid driving at speed in a car*. Mea culpa. However I learned early on that physics and personal talent can quickly run out at those same speeds, never mind the physics and talent of others I share the road with, so I slowed the fcuk down in areas where I knew shít could get real very quickly. How someone knocking on the door of middle age after two decades of driving anything didn't come to a similar conclusion is beyond me TBH. It seems like he had been "lucky" up until that tragedy, but didn't learn from it.



*even these days, though rarely enough, me being well within middle age and well beyond where I should know better, I will sometimes drive at 9/10ths in environments I feel are safer to do so. Indeed within the last 10 days for reasons of needing to do it to clear my head, I went absolutely fcuking hell for leather, real licence losing time on a relatively close by mountain road, at times going well over the speed limit. However, even in my midlife crisis stupidity I chose an environment where if something does go wrong I'm gonna be the only casualty involved. And maybe a sheep.

A truck doing double the speed is risking more peoples lives than his own. OK, bikes can kill other road users, but it's fairly unusual. The only reason there's sympathy for the biker here is because he's dead. But there's no denying that it wasn't a clever thing to do. Speeding is one thing, but that speed through a junction was a bad idea, not something I'd ever do.

Packrat

Cienciano wrote: »

Tell me, what group of drivers obey the rules of the road all the time? Don't try and pretend you don't routinely break ROTR, because every road user does.


A truck doing double the speed is risking more peoples lives than his own. OK, bikes can kill other road users, but it's fairly unusual. The only reason there's sympathy for the biker here is because he's dead. But there's no denying that it wasn't a clever thing to do. Speeding is one thing, but that speed through a junction was a bad idea, not something I'd ever do.

Ok, crossed the line there mate. You can fcuk off with that accusation.

FYI I drive buses, which are speed limited, the company has trackers on us, the rsa have digital tachos on us, -we CANT routinely break the rules of the road, because if we did, we'd be out the door in about 5 seconds, and no court in the land would support us.

No, it's just your lot who I see morning, noon and night travelling at sometimes more than twice the limit routinely. Glad to see you admitted to it.

Kidchameleon

Packrat wrote: »

FYI I drive buses, which are speed limited, the company has trackers on us, the rsa have digital tachos on us, -we CANT routinely break the rules of the road,

So do you drive your bus home with you and park it in the garden?

Cienciano

Packrat wrote: »

Ok, crossed the line there mate. You can fcuk off with that accusation.

FYI I drive buses, which are speed limited, the company has trackers on us, the rsa have digital tachos on us, -we CANT routinely break the rules of the road, because if we did, we'd be out the door in about 5 seconds, and no court in the land would support us.

No, it's just your lot who I see morning, noon and night travelling at sometimes more than twice the limit routinely. Glad to see you admitted to it.

You never broke a ROTR then? You drive your bus home after doing your route? You've never driven a car you drive a bus 100% of the time? Listen, if you're trying to pretend you never break a ROTR, never went 5mph over a speed limit when going into a town or leaving one, never went into a bus lane early when turning left etc you can deny it all you like, you're fooling no one or you've only been driving a day.

Packrat

Cienciano wrote: »

You never broke a ROTR then? You drive your bus home after doing your route? You've never driven a car you drive a bus 100% of the time? Listen, if you're trying to pretend you never break a ROTR, never went 5mph over a speed limit when going into a town or leaving one, never went into a bus lane early when turning left etc you can deny it all you like, you're fooling no one or you've only been driving a day.

Dont drive a "route" and, yes, I take the bus to where I stay each night, I dont even have a car insured from May to November. Yes, I have broken rotr, but not ROUTINELY like you guys do.

Ive been driving 24 years. Now please go away with your childish trolling.

Cienciano

Packrat wrote: »

Dont drive a "route" and, yes, I take the bus to where I stay each night, I dont even have a car insured from May to November. Yes, I have broken rotr, but not ROUTINELY like you guys do.

Ive been driving 24 years. Now please go away with your childish trolling.

Well, you admit to breaking the ROTR, maybe you should take your own advice:

to obey the law of the fcuking land by forcing them to at least obey the outside limit of speed allowed here

You're probably writing the reply to this on your phone while driving your Discovery :pac:

Kidchameleon

Packrat wrote: »

Yes, I have broken rotr, but not ROUTINELY like you guys do.

It only takes one mistake to kill someone....

Frigga_92

When PC Brooks said this “If the Yamaha had been driving at 60 miles per hour the collision could have been avoided.” most people in this thread take it as gospel but when he said this "there was no reason why the driver of the Clio, Benjamin Austin, had failed to see Mr Holmes approaching on his bike." most people in this thread call it lies
You either believe he knows what he's talking about and knows his job or you don't, you can't pick and choose what to believe based on your own agenda.

alan partridge aha wrote: »

The biker was like a ticking time bomb, eventually it's going to blow and someone was going to die.

Well that's a very dramatic statement :rolleyes:

Wibbs

26sdrawkcab wrote: »

When PC Brooks said this “If the Yamaha had been driving at 60 miles per hour the collision could have been avoided.” most people in this thread take it as gospel but when he said this "there was no reason why the driver of the Clio, Benjamin Austin, had failed to see Mr Holmes approaching on his bike." most people in this thread call it lies
You either believe he knows what he's talking about and knows his job or you don't, you can't pick and choose what to believe based on your own agenda.

You do know you can take the two statements independently?

Green Mile

I ride my motorbike everyday and I do indulge in fast speed on occasion.
I can honestly say that I will not be speeding anymore. This video has really hit home with me and I feel the guy’s mother has somehow already saved my life.

Packrat

And there^^^^^^ folks is a sensible reaction from a biker who is a responsible person.

Instead of stakling my past posts Cienciano, you might take note, but then, you probably don't even own a bike.

alan partridge aha

26sdrawkcab wrote: »

When PC Brooks said this “If the Yamaha had been driving at 60 miles per hour the collision could have been avoided.” most people in this thread take it as gospel but when he said this "there was no reason why the driver of the Clio, Benjamin Austin, had failed to see Mr Holmes approaching on his bike." most people in this thread call it lies
You either believe he knows what he's talking about and knows his job or you don't, you can't pick and choose what to believe based on your own agenda.



Well that's a very dramatic statement :rolleyes:

It's a fact, going 60% over the limit consistently will only end in tragedy, especially on roads like that, I'm just amazed it took 20 years. He could handle a bike but it just needs a person to walk out or sadly a car in his case for tragedy to happen.

Shakespeare's Sister

Very very sad - neither party was driving responsibly but a man is dead and another has to live with playing a role in his death. I don't know whether the motorcyclist's speed was a direct cause but it was irresponsibly fast, and the ad will hopefully get through to those who speed/aren't alert enough when driving. That's the purpose of releasing the footage, which is incredibly brave of his family.

davemc180 wrote: »

the amount of post who say he was speeding which he was but not at crazy speed in fairness hes not flying!!!

You've got to be having a laugh. Eh... did you not SEE the footage of him bombing it down the road, overtaking like it was going out of fashion?

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Clip Clop Clip Clop


Some SERIOUSLY high horses on this thread.

Who are you even talking about?

myshirt wrote: »

Do we know if it was a male or female driver of the car?

Male I think - there's a post about his sentencing and stuff.

Rucking_Fetard

Drink Driving is Rampant....RAMPANT! The amount of people I see at it is...in this day and age...shocking. It died down for awhile but it's everywhere now. I know one guy that's tore the side out of his last 3 cars driving home twisted.

alan partridge aha

I have to admit I'm pretty blasé about drink driving, but this video certainly hits home. God help her and her family.