JonnyHK 

Mother releases harrowing footage of son's death in 97mph horror motorbike crash | Mail Online

Cliff Notes version:
Guy on motorbike is doing 97mph in (I presume) a 60mph zone. Car turns across him. They collide and he dies. All captured on a helmet cam.

The driver was charged with and pleaded guilty to 'causing a death by careless driving'.

Thoughts:
Cars often turn across motorbikes and cyclists because they don't see them (or are not really looking).
However, how fast is too fast for any person to see and react to?

I think I would have fought that charge if I were the driver.

Your thoughts?

klmmicro

This behavior is one I have experienced. It has become completely normal to have cars "take chances" and turn into (right turn) or across (left turn) oncoming traffic when it is obvious they do not have room. Somewhere along the line, people have decided that "they will slow" or have lost their depth perception. Most drivers treat their car like a cocoon and are simply too distracted or are not really trained to safely drive.

The motorcyclist was going too fast, but the car turned across its path without taking time to properly judge whether the action was safe. Both parties are at fault and one of them is dead. Tragic...could have been prevented.

FrenchFit 

My thoughts are that was a courageous and very caring thing for the mom to do, I hope she and her husband find peace of mind. Same for the driver.

Grey.

He liked to go fast, he accepted the risk and bore the consequences. Yes, the driver made a mistake, but doing 97mph in a 60mph zone... he was gambling with his life.

Two mistakes, one death, another probably scarred for life.

genec

The problem is that the automobile driver probably had a hard time judging the speed of the motorcycle as it was coming head on... and likely assumed that the motorcycle was going the legal speed; then judged the turn based on that assumption.

Since the motorcycle was well over the speed limit and well over the speed of other traffic in the area, the motorcycle operator put himself into a bad situation that ended his life by assuming that others would watch out for him, in spite of his bad actions.

Shimagnolo

+1
The motorcyclist contributed to his own death, and in fact the accident probably would not have happened if he was doing a normal speed.
I think the punishment to the driver was grossly excessive.

BTW I am a motorcycle rider.

Mvcrash

Time and distance: had the MC been doing the legal speed limit, would the crash have occurred? Simple answer is no. At criminal trial, a good lawyer and investigator would have presented strong evidence that the Mc operator caused his own death. Condolences to the families, both suffer.

Mvcrash

There is no contributory negligence in the criminal code. (NJ)

Coal Buster

Yep. If someone crosses the divider and heads-on-you in your own lane, you aren't considered partially negligent because you weren't wearing a seat belt which is required by law. It could, however, be considered in a civil suit where you can assign a percentage of responsibility to both parties.

dynodonn 

I suspect that "looming" and "camouflage", in addition to speeding were major factors in this motorcyclist's demise, and why I rode motorcycles at or near the speed limit, like I had eyes all around my head, plus with a healthy dose of sixth sense.

no motor?

That sounds nice, but can you back that up with facts? Crashes regularly happen between vehicles that aren't speeding, and the car could easily have pulled in front of the biker if the biker was doing the speed limit or slower. I rode for almost 20 years, and never had an accident on 2 wheels. But the close calls I had usually involved someone pulling out if front of me or stopping too close when I was stopped. Other drivers not looking for motorcycles was the predominant factor there, not speed. Especially when I was stopped.

This happened in England where the requirements for earning a drivers license are much more stringent than they are here. The biker may have been going fast but he had 22 years of experience and was riding a sport touring bike made to safely handle that speed. It looks like motorcycle headlights are required to be on all the time in England, and the headlight and bright orange helmet would have made it harder for the biker to blend into the background. Both parties were at fault, but the driver of the car much more so. Too bad the biker suffered more.

dynodonn 

My opinion is that the motorcyclist is more at fault for due to his excessive speed, which gave the motorcyclist less time to react and his chances to avoid a collision, or to at least make the collision survivable.

Gneux01

Nither are 100% at fault. The car should of paid attention to incoming traffic, but the bike should of been going slower. That being said, I'm not sure it would of made a difference if he was going 60 mph or 97 mph. The sudden stop likely would of killed him even at 60 mph. I'm always paying attention to the traffic in front of me, when I'm going fast on my electric bike. Too many times, I've had cars just cut in front of me and I've had to slam on my breaks hard to avoid hitting them.

howsteepisit

Only thing I can say is a fool and his life are soon parted. If I am the driver I'd probably fight the charge, but I am in the US and this occurred in the UK, and I have no clue as to what the governing law might be.

genec

If the motorcyclist were going the speed limit, there may not have even been a need for a sudden stop... that is the point that most of us are trying to convey.

gecho

Bad decision on his part.

no motor?

That's true, but that also brings up the question of what would a safe speed be for the car when it was driving into the lane of the vehicle with the right of way?

Gneux01

That is true, and I don't disagree with that. However, I still think they both shared the blame. Had he been going slower, the would of never hit the car. If the car had not given the bike the right away, the bike would of never hit him. It sucks he lost his life. The driver likely felt bad for the death of the guy on the bike, but I don't think the guilty plea was needed. That being said, I'm not sure what the charge would of been as it was a shared fault.

mannie3moon

Yes, the motorcyclist was speeding, but that doesn't mean that the crash could not have happened had he gone slower. It is a car driver's responsibility to look before making a left turn (or right turn in the UK) across traffic, and this is why. As another poster has already pointed out, the motorcyclist had the right of way.

headloss 

Being predictable is one of the safest things a person can do, regardless of a vehicle. If the motorcyclist was just short of 100mph, he wasn't being very predictable for other users on the road.

Whether or not the automobile driver was also being unpredictable to the motorcyclist is less obvious.

Shimagnolo

The formula for the kinetic energy of a moving object: 0.5 x mass x velocity^2.
At 97mph: 0.5 x mass x 97^2.
At 60mph: 0.5 x mass x 60^2.
To find the difference, divide the first by the second, the 0.5 and mass cancel out, leaving 97^2 / 60^2;
That is about 2.6 times the kinetic energy!

Yan 

The driver is at fault. The motorcycle rider should get a speeding ticket, but there is no law that says you are allowed to turn across another vehicle's path simply because they are speeding. The road was straight, there were no obstacles blocking the view of the bike. Light travels at the speed of light. The driver should have seen the rider. The driver did not see the rider and caused a fatal collision. Therefore the driver was negligent. The speed of the rider had no bearing on the driver's negligence. The car was stationary and had to accelerate into the path of the bike. Would the driver have had a better chance of seeing the bike if the bike had been traveling at the speed limit? No. The driver made the decision to turn while the rider was X metres away from the car. This distance is unrelated to the rider's speed. Perhaps the rider was moving so quickly that his outline was literally blurred into a streak of light, making him invisible to the driver? No, that's not how human vision works. All that is important is that at a certain moment when the rider was X metres away from the car, the driver failed to see the rider and proceeded with the turn. The rider's speed only comes into the equation during the next step: from the moment the driver accelerated into the rider's path, it was up to the rider to avoid the collision. Even if the rider was riding at 60mph, the car would not have had enough time to accelerate off the rider's path. Would the rider have had a better chance of avoiding the collision if he had been traveling at the speed limit? Yes. Does the rider's ability to avoid a collision course created by the negligence of another driver, have any bearing on the status of that driver's guilt? None whatsoever. Therefore the driver is at fault.

Let me preempt what is surely to be a common response to my argument: "surely it is harder to see a vehicle moving at 100mph, than a vehicle moving at 60mph?".
My response: "if the margin of a driver's visual perception is so thin that other road users lives rest entirely on their not crossing a certain arbitrary threshold of speed, then that driver is negligent by being on the road at all. And no, it is no more difficult to see a formula one car at 250mph, than it is to see it at rest."

The driver did the right thing by taking responsibility for his actions, which is more than what I can say for certain posters in this thread. The driver did not set out to cause harm to another road user. This was a tragic event. I hope the driver gets off easy and everyone who remains alive can move on.

dynodonn 

The motorcyclist may have had the right of way, but I doubt the collision would have occurred or have been as severe if the motorcyclist had not been traveling at 60 percent over the speed limit, and in my opinion, causing the motorist to misjudge the motorcyclist's speed by a wide margin, something I've learned that motorists tend to do in my many years of motorcycle and bicycle riding.

Mvcrash

Simple math: The bike at 100 mph is travelling at 146 FPS/PS and at 60 mph it travels at 87 FPS/PS. I reviewed the video and the M/C driver has a clear view of the intersection for at least 4-5 seconds pre-crash. At 100 MPH that would put him approx. 590-700 feet away from the crash site with a clear view. It takes 1.6 seconds to perceive and react to a hazard in the roadway. At 60 MPH or 87 FPS/PS he would travel approx. 141 feet during perception/reaction. He would then apply the brakes. It would take another 100-125 feet to stop on an average road. 125+141=266 feet to perceive, react and stop the bike. He would have been a minimum of 300 feet from the intersection when the car enters.

FTI: I counted the seconds from the video, did not use a timer. I used their speed estimate and the posted speed limit and made the assumption (bad ) the vehicle was turning onto the cross street. I hope this suffices for our purpose.

Any crash that occurs, someone made a mistake. Speed is only one cause, there are many. Most accidents are just that, accidents. Very rarely does the cause of a collision rise to the level of criminal conduct when drugs, alcohol or purposeful conduct is not present.

walrus1

After watching the video I'd say the blame is 80/20 with the motorcyclist taking the blunt. Going so fast over the speed limit, especially on a motorcycle, is akin to playing russian roulette. Yes, the driver should have been able to see him. However, at that speed he left the driver very little time to gauge the distance as well as his speed and react. Also he was obstructed from the drivers FOV when he passed that car shortly before the crash. I thus believe the sentence was far far too severe especially as the judge stated that driver was not driving in an unsafe manner. I would have sentenced him to driver safety class. When someone is driving that fast and recklessly on a small road there isn't always a lot other road users can do.

Let us assume that the driver had not seen the motorcycle and the biker wasn't speeding. The biker would have been able to take evasive action and/or come to stop as the car clears his path. At very least the motorcycle could have slowed down enough to give him a better chance at survival.

I would love to own a motorcycle but I'm afraid something like this would happen. I keep hearing about people, some experienced with motorbikes and some not, who give in the temptation to go so very fast because it so easy. I'm afraid I might give in as well.