Wow! Speed does kill.

jackal

Apparently what is displayed in the picture is not the actual car and bike involved in the crash, as they both would have been cut to bits by the emergency services. Its a recreation, hence why it doesent look quite right.

Lord Nikon

How did they know the bike was going that fast? Did they view the broken speedo on the bike after the crash or something, or plain guesswork?

RicardoSmith

jackal wrote:

Apparently what is displayed in the picture is not the actual car and bike involved in the crash, as they both would have been cut to bits by the emergency services. Its a recreation, hence why it doesent look quite right.

How do you know that? I originally thought it fake, used for an safety ad campaign or something, or even a fine art sculpture turning the biker<car on its head (I'm just back from an Art college degree show). So thats why I want to know more about it.

prospect

saobh_ie wrote:

It could be equally sucessful as part of a campaign to promote safer driving in cagers, ie. don't pull out in front of bikes because they can actually hurt you.

WTF!!! :mad:
Some of you fuppin bikers really have opinions of yourselves.
I think it was quite obvious that the biker doing 250KMH was completely 100% in the wrong.

Cop the fup on grasshole :mad:

RicardoSmith

prospect wrote:

WTF!!! :mad:
Some of you fuppin bikers really have opinions of yourselves.
I think it was quite obvious that the biker doing 250KMH was completely 100% in the wrong.

Cop the fup on grasshole :mad:

Why is that obvious? The car could simply have pulled out in front of a biker from a side road. You just can't tell from a static picture.

Blitzkrieger

The whole thing sounds fishy. I'd believe some of the biker might have been found inside the car, but you'd think most of him would have been caught on the roof. I also don't believe a bike hitting a Golf with the hand brake off in the middle of and oil slick would push the car 300 meters. Flipping it onto the roof and pushing the whole thing along just would not happen.

You might as well say it was hit by 42 cambodian fighting midjets.

saobh_ie

Hey, Did you see me defending anybody doing 250km/h on public roads? I just made an observation that that picture would also be good for a safety campaign for car drivers as well as motorcyclists.

Open a few eyes perhaps, perhaps tell people that was the result of a lower speed collision, something everyday perhaps like 140km/h, and make the point that bikes can enter cars at lower speeds too.

Or even tell people that getting hit by a bike going 50km/h broad side, 400kg @ 12m/s with a point load area of 500 x 600mm hitting your car door is going to put your door half way through the drivers or passengers seat really badly hurting you.

I don't pretend to be an expert or faultless (although I know a couple of those types of riders, seriously) on the road but I can honestly say I've never put anybody’s in imminent mortal danger. However in a recent accident somebody pulled out in front of me (putting themselves in danger in this case) and knew nothing about it until they heard a great big bang as I glanced off them after a massive evasive effort. A few weeks previously a car had come through a red light in excess of seventy km/h and nearly took out myself and the car in the lane beside me as we were pulling away from the lights (I went after that guy and educated him but didn’t report him to the Gardaí which I should of in hindsight.)

DubTony

saobh_ie wrote:

Hey, Did you see me defending anybody doing 250km/h on public roads? I just made an observation that that picture would also be good for a safety campaign for car drivers as well as motorcyclists.

How did that British campaign go years ago?
Was it ... "Think once, think twice ... THINK BIKE !!!!!"

Now we should think once - think twice - think bike ... oh, and then watch out for the fúcking arsehole lunatic who'll cover that 200 metre gap before you're foot's all the way off the clutch.

MrPudding

A mate of mine crashed into a bridge, after badly losing control, up north years ago. They were able to approximate his speed at various points during the "incident." They measured depths of rubber on the road from the skids and the amount of deformation in the metal of the bridge. He was obviously "involved" at the time but reckons they were pretty spot on.

Amazing what they can do.

MrP

Hotblack Desiato

prospect wrote:

WTF!!! :mad:
Some of you fuppin bikers really have opinions of yourselves.

Try using the roads sometime while not cocooned in a metal cage, trust me you will see things from a new perspective.

By far the most common car / bike accident is caused by the car breaking a light or pulling out from a minor road/parking spot right into the path of a biker.

Some of the time it's "sorry mate I didn't see you" (i.e. didn't really look carefully enough) other times they see the bike coming, decide they can chance it, but misjudge the gap and pull out - bang.

This happens all the time and a motorcyclist always has to be alert for morons pulling out. Car drivers take chances when they see a bike coming they certainly wouldn't take if it was a 40 tonne truck bearing down on them. I think that was the OP's point.

I think it was quite obvious that the biker doing 250KMH was completely 100% in the wrong.

If true, yes, but it's obviously a reconstruction. Who knows the facts of the original incident - if, in fact, there was one?

Cop the fup on grasshole :mad:

Language Timothy. Why do you seem to have a problem accepting that points of view different to yours exist and are equally valid?

Balfa

Why do you all have to question the artcile? What do the police have to gain by lying and saying the bike was doing 250+ or that they travelled 300m? Why can't you just accept it at face value?

btw, a 260kg bike+rider doing over 250km/h will have enough momentum (20800kgm/s) whereby if you suddenly add 1300kg of car and two occupants to it, the whole package will be doing about 48km/h after the collision.

Now you put a car on its roof at 48km/h and see how far it goes. And like someone said, it could have been on a slope, or in the wet, or anything.

Blitzkrieger and the sentiment of lots of people on this thread wrote:

I also don't believe a bike hitting a Golf with the hand brake off in the middle of and oil slick would push the car 300 meters. Flipping it onto the roof and pushing the whole thing along just would not happen.

Well physics suggests otherwise.

prospect

Some of you people are so closed minded I laugh.

I can guarntee you that if the bikers of this counrty, stayed in lane, didn't squeeze and weave between cars, didn't use hard shoulders, didn't use bus lanes, didn't drive on the white line, didn't ignore 'No Overtaking' signs, did use their indicators etc, the number of accidents involving bikes would drop dramatically.

If you guys wanna drive around like lunatics, accept the consequences.

drdre

guys at the end of the day speed does kill:o

"like i really give a ****" he he he!!

BrianD3

Balfa wrote:

btw, a 260kg bike+rider doing over 250km/h will have enough momentum (20800kgm/s) whereby if you suddenly add 1300kg of car and two occupants to it, the whole package will be doing about 48km/h after the collision.

Only if it's an elastic collision which it clearly isn't.

Balfa

BrianD3 wrote:

Only if it's an elastic collision which it clearly isn't.

no it's not an elastic collision, because the two become stuck together, but that doesn't change the law of conservation of momentum.

saobh_ie

Some of you people are so closed minded I laugh.

I can guarntee you that if the drivers of this counrty, stayed in lane, didn't squeeze and weave between cars, didn't use hard shoulders, didn't use bus lanes, didn't drive on the white line, didn't ignore 'No Overtaking' signs, did use their indicators etc, the number of accidents involving bikes and cars would drop dramatically.

If you guys wanna drive around like lunatics, accept the consequences.

Every group of drivers has a bad element, a dangerous element and a homicidal element. But as it stands with bikes making up a ridiculously small percentage of road traffic (2% or somethin ?!?!?!) theres more bad car drivers than there are motorcyclists.

Hotblack Desiato

prospect wrote:

Some of you people are so closed minded I laugh.

First of all, what exactly do you mean by 'you people'?
Cars and bikes aren't mutually exclusive, most bikers drive a car too, I drive a car regularly, I just don't commute by car.

What's closed minded about saying that the biggest safety issue as regards motorcyclists is the failure of car drivers to look out for them and to yield when the bike has the right of way? This is fact and the insurance claims data of the motorcycle insurers bears this out. 75% of car-bike accidents are squarely the fault of the car driver according to the insurers - most commonly failing to yield to a bike or changing lane into the path of a bike.

Perhaps the insurers are just making all this up, or they're closed minded too, eh?

I can guarntee you that if the bikers of this counrty, stayed in lane, didn't squeeze and weave between cars, didn't use hard shoulders, didn't use bus lanes, didn't drive on the white line, didn't ignore 'No Overtaking' signs, did use their indicators etc, the number of accidents involving bikes would drop dramatically.

That's a pretty big generalisation there pilgrim.

I can equally say that car drivers don't give a damn about the safety of anyone outside their metal cage, are more interested in tuning their stereo, picking their nose or lighting a fag than driving safely, have no idea what to do on a roundabout or when a road has more than one lane, think indicators and mirrors are for ornamental purposes, and have the observational powers of Stevie Wonder without his guide dog. But that would be generalising :rolleyes:

If you guys wanna drive around like lunatics, accept the consequences.

Ah, the blame-shift. This is where things get nasty. "Sure if he hadn't been on a bike he would have been grand when I hit him." If there were no motorcyclists, there would be no motorcycle accidents... By kidding yourself that all motorcyclists are lunatics and if anything happens to them it's their fault, you don't need to try to be a better driver, to observe for bikes and not just cars, to give them room when passing, etc. Much easier that way isn't it?

Blitzkrieger

Balfa wrote:

Well physics suggests otherwise.

You get on a bike, I'll borrow my friends Golf and we'll see who's right?

You're over-simplifying the physics. The door of the Golf might be a soft point, but the main mass of the bike is going to hit the floor pan. I've had friends in similar accidents (at lower speed, thank god) and every time the front wheel has stayed on the ground while they were thrown over the car and the bike slammed into it's side. Add in side impact absortion by the Golf and crumpling of the bike - it's just not going to hit the car high enough and hard enough to roll it over. You could make the bike out of cast iron and it still wouldn't do it.

lomb

ninja900 wrote:

That's a pretty big generalisation there pilgrim.

not really, i have never seen a biker, except a scooterist and even they weave in slow traffic obey the law and not weave in and out of traffic, overtake ridiculously etc, and i doubt anyone else has either.
u guys have a deathwish and i wouldnt spill my milk if i creamed u thru no fault of my own.
i also someday hope to get a cruiser bike and i most definately wont b overtaking people who already are doing the legal limit, weave into or out of traffic etc. mayb i dont want to die yet?

Kermitt

jackal wrote:

Apparently what is displayed in the picture is not the actual car and bike involved in the crash, as they both would have been cut to bits by the emergency services. Its a recreation, hence why it doesent look quite right.

i think you're right jackal. the drivers airbag has deployed.. (see 3rd pic) and this would not happen with a side impact or rollover as the sensors are in behind the front bumper. looks a bit like a reconstruction loosely based on fact.

prospect

ninja900 wrote:

First of all, what exactly do you mean by 'you people'?
Cars and bikes aren't mutually exclusive, most bikers drive a car too, I drive a car regularly, I just don't commute by car.

What's closed minded about saying that the biggest safety issue as regards motorcyclists is the failure of car drivers to look out for them and to yield when the bike has the right of way? This is fact and the insurance claims data of the motorcycle insurers bears this out. 75% of car-bike accidents are squarely the fault of the car driver according to the insurers - most commonly failing to yield to a bike or changing lane into the path of a bike.

Perhaps the insurers are just making all this up, or they're closed minded too, eh?


That's a pretty big generalisation there pilgrim.

I can equally say that car drivers don't give a damn about the safety of anyone outside their metal cage, are more interested in tuning their stereo, picking their nose or lighting a fag than driving safely, have no idea what to do on a roundabout or when a road has more than one lane, think indicators and mirrors are for ornamental purposes, and have the observational powers of Stevie Wonder without his guide dog. But that would be generalising :rolleyes:


Ah, the blame-shift. This is where things get nasty. "Sure if he hadn't been on a bike he would have been grand when I hit him." If there were no motorcyclists, there would be no motorcycle accidents... By kidding yourself that all motorcyclists are lunatics and if anything happens to them it's their fault, you don't need to try to be a better driver, to observe for bikes and not just cars, to give them room when passing, etc. Much easier that way isn't it?

What a load of bull****e!
If a motorbiker is going to weave etc, and I hit him cause he/she is somewhere they shouldn't be, than you are dead right, I dont give a fup. Stay in lane like everyone else and you'll be allright.

I didn't mean to generalise, apologies on that one, but a large percentage of bikers do behave that way.

I have yet to see a car drive up between lanes. Only this very morning, on the nangor road, where there are alot of road works going on, a motorbike drove up the outside of the single lane of traffic, on the wrong side of the road. Then there is a line of cones, about 300 yards long, and what did he do? Yep he stayed on the wrong side of them and happily put putted along on the wrong side of the road. This is the behaviour that gets bikers in accidents.

Its as simple as this, cars and bikes, stay in the proper lane and obey the rules of the road, and if i hit you cause you are acting like a prick trying to get ahead of of the lesser beings on the road, tough titty.

Gurgle

Blitzkrieger wrote:

The door of the Golf might be a soft point, but the main mass of the bike is going to hit the floor pan.

The bike's centre of gravity is at least 2 feet off the ground.

Blitzkrieger wrote:

the front wheel has stayed on the ground while they were thrown over the car and the bike slammed into it's side.

Sure!

Blitzkrieger wrote:

Add in side impact absortion by the Golf

Do they have side impact absorbtion ?

Blitzkrieger wrote:

and crumpling of the bike

Bikes don't generally crumple much laterally. A crumple zone is a bit redundant

Blitzkrieger wrote:

- it's just not going to hit the car high enough and hard enough to roll it over. You could make the bike out of cast iron and it still wouldn't do it.

I'm pretty sure I could roll a golf over with my bike at top speed.
The only way to settle this is by experimenting.
Whos got a golf ?

Boggle

guys at the end of the day speed does kill

Actually, its the sudden stop that kills.

If a motorbiker is going to weave etc, and I hit him cause he/she is somewhere they shouldn't be, than you are dead right, I dont give a fup. Stay in lane like everyone else and you'll be allright.

While that may be true, it is undeniable that alot of motorists simply do not see bikers. (Hence many driving with their lights on during the day)

prospect

Boggle wrote:

While that may be true, it is undeniable that alot of motorists simply do not see bikers. (Hence many driving with their lights on during the day)

I am not denying that at all. But if they are in the wrong place, tough luck.
If they are in the centre of the appropriate lane, with the other motorists, then it is undeniable that alot of these accidents wouldn't occur.

Some of these bikers need to accept the fact that they are less visable. That is the laws of physics, and they should drive more carefully accordingly.
But the problem here is that, some bikers are aware of this, but they want to use their smaller (and hence less visable) vehicle to their advantage, and they drive more dangerously as described already. And, they then expect the car drivers to be extra, extra careful to not to hit them!!??!!
So they choose a more dangerous vehicle, and expect the rest of the motoring world to accommodate their choice, and in the meantime they break nearly every rule regarding appropriate road positioning!
I don't think so.

echomadman

prospect wrote:

Some of you people are so closed minded I laugh.

I can guarntee you that if the bikers of this counrty, stayed in lane, didn't squeeze and weave between cars, didn't use hard shoulders, didn't use bus lanes, didn't drive on the white line, didn't ignore 'No Overtaking' signs, did use their indicators etc, the number of accidents involving bikes would drop dramatically.

If you guys wanna drive around like lunatics, accept the consequences.

wait, are you talking about bikers only here? i've been thinking about sticking a camera on the bike and going for a drive around, just to show people like you how many stupid heedless things car drivers do all the time.
I'll agree the general standard of biker traning is low in the country but you cant seem to differentiate between whats actually dangerous and not judging by your list.
Sounds to me like a typical case of cager sour grapes that you have to sit in traffic jams while bikes are able to make progress.


edit: a lot of you dont seem to realise that it isnt explicitly illegal to filter in traffic in this country, and for the people who say they never see cars lane splitting, i see it all the time on roads with wide lanes/a bit of a hard shoulder, ive seen cars 4 abreast on a 2 lane road with 2 cars going in each direction, quite safely. bikes are small and can fit in smaller gaps, you may think it looks dangerous but from the bikers perspective there's loads of room to fit through

prospect

echomadman wrote:

Sounds to me like a typical case of cager sour grapes

Not at all really. I wouldn't get on a bike for two reasons. 1. I don't like them, have no interest in them. 2. I really don't see the point in them, I'd rather get home late, than not at all.

echomadman wrote:

you have to sit in traffic jams while bikes are able to make progress.

My point exactly, thank you. It doesn't bother me that bikers do this. More power to them. But it is your choice to do it, and you can suffer the consequences of it.

For the LAST TIME. If a biker gets hit because they are somewhere they shouldn't be; open your Fuppin eyes, ITS YOUR OWN FAULT FOR BEING THERE, don't try and blame someone else.

Macy

I have to say, "filtering" when traffic is stopped doesn't bother me. "Filtering" in moving traffic, at the speed limit, does. And I see it every morning and evening in a 120kph limit, when the traffic in the overtaking lane is doing 120kph.

I won't get into the other stuff I see, as no doubt it'll be written off as "weekend warriors" or "Couriers"... :rolleyes:

edmund_f

i could be wrong here, but most of the speed related bike accidents happen from entering a bend, a left hand bend, and coming out on the wrong side of the road into oncoming traffic. Apart from that most are caused by cars. Would be nice to see all bikers wearing high vis, as most do, but the bikers who wear all black are almost invisible. Not an excuse on the part of motorists, but if it saves lives?

echomadman

prospect wrote:

For the LAST TIME. If a biker gets hit because they are somewhere they shouldn't be; open your Fuppin eyes, ITS YOUR OWN FAULT FOR BEING THERE, don't try and blame someone else.

?
whos blaming someone else for that, my point was that you dont see many accidents caused by the antics you mentioned, instead its poor lane discipline and an utter lack of observation by car drivers that do cause accidents.

Anyone i know thats crashed (myself included) has either been due to a car driver "not seeing them" or poor road conditions combined with excessive speed/lack of experience.
I've no sympathy for people who crash due to their own actions, and would espect none if i crashed while driving dangerously.

I agree that lane-splitting at/above the speedlimit is retarded though, the general rule of thumb i go by is not more than 20 mph faster than traffic and not faster than 40 mph

prospect

echomadman wrote:

I've no sympathy for people who crash due to their own actions, and would espect none if i crashed while driving dangerously.

Then we have no quibble sir.
I was referring to the person who originally implied that the case in the OP could have been the car drivers fault, for not seeing a motorbike travelling at 250KMh.
There seems to be a common trend among some bikers, and some car drivers, but particularly bikers, to blame everything on the car driver not seeing them.
My point is, if someone is going to travel on a less visable, less safe vehicle, the onus is on that person to take the extra precautions necessary to ensure their safety, and not to expect every other road user to do same.