I agrre that (sadly) we have to assume that everyone is out to kill us, and not just on bikes!!

I agree and drive like that.

Especially expecting in roundabouts that the driver to my right will pull across in front of me accelerating hard and turn left in front of me...

(Happened several times - from the driver of an Escort to an modern Jaguar...)

Manatee posted this link:

www.slobc.org/safety/documents/road-survival-guide...f

Thanks, Manatee, for posting that. I found it really useful. It explains why, more than once, I've failed to see a cyclist approaching on a main road which I'm entering. I've always been amazed by that as I'm a cyclist myself and would expect to be super-alert to the presence of one when I'm driving.

>>The "Speed doesn't kill" crowd seem a little quiet on this one. Tacit acceptance, maybe?

Not from me, though I've always thought that "speed kills" completely misses the point - the only place that takes you is that if 20mph is the speed at which most people will survive, we should just do 20mph everywhere, or that 80mph is always dangerous, which it clearly isn't.

What went wrong here?

1. The car driver, according to his or her admission, did not see the motor cycle, or the car behind it, even though other witnesses did. We know that happens, because most of us have had that experience (and usually got away with it). Maybe he/she only scanned once, and missed them, as explained in the link above. The motorcycle's speed may have been a factor in it's not being seen but it seems unlikely if the car behind was overlooked as well.

2. There is no sign to me, in the video, that the motor cyclist treated the junction as a hazard (which a junction is, whether you have right of way or not). There was always a possibiity that the car would turn across him- haven't we all had that experience too?

Yes, if he had prepared for that eventuality by easing off; covering brakes; adopting a defensive road positioning, then he would of course have been travelling at a much lower speed but that just follows from the right approach. It isn't about saying one speed is dangerous, and another isn't.

There were probably other factors too, but the motorcyclist's contributory factor, as above, seems to be in not identifying the hazard and/or dealing with it as such.

Something similar almost happened to me, about a year ago, in a car - it made enough of an impression for me to write about it on another forum goo.gl/fP2Izd .

Reading that old post now, it sounds a bit smug - I certainly didn't feel that way at the time, just very relieved and a bit guilty that my wife had had a nasty shock and suffered some bruising - lucky as well that I have always been a bit 'paranoid', probably because I know I am fallible too.

(Being paranoid does not mean that they aren't out to get you).

My speculation is that David was riding unusually aggressively (for him) that day, or he would not have survived 22 years on fast bikes. I think he had been to some sort of racing day - maybe there was still too much adrenaline rushing around his system.

A very sad story indeed - almost certainly he was less attuned to danger than usual, and it just happened to be one of those days when 'something happened'. I feel very sorry for the families, and the car driver.

Incidentally - I have also, as a youth, hit the side of a car that pulled out of a minor road right in front of me - I shot over the roof and landed in the road, my scooter was a write off. The driver said "I just didn't see you...".

Of course I hadn't seen the fighter pilot's article then, so I probably just assumed he was lying, or stupid. Too long ago to remember now.

>> >>20mph is the speed at which most people will survive

>>I think that is for pedestrians being hit by a vehicle.

You missed out the "if" when you quoted me. Insert any speed you like, the argument still applies.

>>80mph on the roads isn't dangerous anywhere?

Now just where did I say that "80mph ...isn't dangerous anywhere"? I didn't. I said 80mph isn't always dangerous, which is not the same thing at all.

Speed is a number. If you say "speed is dangerous", what number do you mean? It's a concept that can't be applied, so it is of no use.

Of course 97mph was dangerous in that situation. That is a statement of the bleeding obvious, so not helpful. So you might say "QED, he should have been travelling at a lower speed" - what speed? Not helpful either, unless you are prepared to consider every possible set of circumstances, or choose a ludicrous maximum to cover all circumstances, whether it be 20, 30 or 40 or 100.

I'll say it again - the motorcyclist failed properly to set up for a hazard, i.e. a junction with traffic around and a car turning right. 40-45 might have been appropriate, so even the speed limit (probably 60?) would be no help at all.

I have seen plenty of people going too fast at 30, and done it myself on occasion (not deliberately).

I have also (and I am neither proud nor ashamed of it, but prepared to admit it) been clocked at 119mph on the M6. I took the medicine and paid the fine, but no way was it dangerous - the only other car in sight at 6am 23 years ago being the police car coming down the slip road that measured my speed. The police even agreed it wasn't dangerous, and kindly reported that they had followed me at a speed of "98-102"! Please don't tell me I could have had a blowout - I haven't had one in a million miles.

FWIW, I do my level best to stick to speed limits now, because I need my licence. But really, the constant looking at the speedo on open roads out of town is just another distraction - the 'right speed' is often under the limit. On the other hand, the mile after mile of A roads now limited to 50 stands as a shameful testament to the nanny state.

What we need is better drivers, not lower speed limits.

Disagree by all means, but please don't misrepresent what I have said.

Edited by Manatee on 07/09/2014 at 19:26

The "Speed doesn't kill" crowd seem a little quiet on this one.

Tacit acceptance, maybe?

Excessive speed kills. Speeding doesn't.

If David hadn't been travelling so fast the incident wouldn't have happened.

Would the bikers on here be pontificating quite so much if the biker had hit a pedestrian crossing the road who'd 'misjudged' his stupidly reckless speed?

Eh? The bikers who have posted in this thread have all said the rider was riding recklessly and dangerously on the road. The same would apply if the accident involved a pedestrian.

Very well said, Sofa Spud. I do have considerable sympathy for the car driver: OK, it was wrong to turn right in the face of oncoming traffic, but the driver coud quite reasonably have assumed that the motorcyclist was going at a normal speed. So even if he/she saw the bike (and may not have done) it would be possible to think there was time to get across.

The "Speed doesn't kill" crowd seem a little quiet on this one.

Tacit acceptance, maybe?

Speed on its own does not kill.

Going way too fast where its inapropriate to do so is always going to end badly when things get out of control. Hitting something at 97 mph is always going to end badly.

On Thursday last on my way home I passed a car vs motorcycle accident. No idea what happened but the motorcycle was mostly under the car. Its a 30 mph limit but at that time of day you are lucky to be doing much more than 10 mph. The rider was on the road looking non to well, what worried me was that passers by had removed his helmet.

You don't have to be going fast for bad things to happen.

I ride a large motorcycle with twin headlights - H4 bulbs like a car, converted to xenon-they are permanently on when the engine is running- they cannot be switched off, they are unmissable in daylight and very much more so at night.

My helmet is flourescent yellow with black stripes.

I wear a Hi-Vis gilet fluo yellow.

Cars regularly pull out in front of me at junctions and roundabouts causing me to brake to avoid them because either the drivers do not bother to look-I can tell they don't bother because I can't get eye contact with them-or they look and still pull out.

This is after road positioning near to the centre if appropriate to give them a better view of me and gentle weaving to attract their attention.

This used to happen to me on a regular basis in the UK and it happens to me now currently in France.

I am convinced that many drivers cannot see properly, there is no proper test of vision in the UK apart from the inadequate reading of the number plate at the time of the driving test, in France they now have to have a proper eye test before they start learning but there is no subsequent follow-up test, and the French driving licence entitlement never expires with age.

Police everywhere make a lot of noise about testing for speed and alcohol but when was the last time anyone heard a police spokesman talking about eye tests and vision?

Recently I was overtaken on a motorway by a high-performance car that I think was doing at least 140 mph, maybe more (put it this way, I've never encountered a car travelling so fast on a motorway in 40+ years driving). The sudden-ness with which this car appeared in the rear-view mirror was alarming. One second there was nothing behind, next time I looked this car was about to pass me.

Can you imagine how the driver of this car felt?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpvrRB79koU&t=2m30s

Edited by corax on 08/09/2014 at 18:18