Whose fault was this one?

brat

pendulum wrote: »

brat wrote:

it might be a trend among impatient motorcyclists to try to promote this kind of aggressive filtering to an acceptable behaviour that other road users have a requirement to anticipate.

Again, showing the anti-bike bias I first called you out on several pages ago.

He wasn't filtering aggressively at all, he was just riding down the road.

At ~30mph, before he braked!? At what speed would you filter past stationary traffic to take account of things that you may reasonably expect to happen? Please don't tell me you would ride like this?

I assert that a 30mph filter is aggressive filtering, especially in poor weather and in a built up area where hazards abound.
That rider can't even look after himself! And you need to be able to do that if you're filtering.

Jamie_Carter

brat wrote: »

You don't know that he failed to check the lane he was crossing. An emerging driver must move out slowly to the point at which he believes he has cleared the traffic (left and right) and there is no evidence that he hasn't done this. Remember, at the point the Passat driver emerges through the established lane of queuing cars to get a good view to the right, there is likely to be no sign of the approaching rider, because he would be 30+ metres away and out of view (although the rider would very probably be able to see the car). The Passat driver would then take a quick view to the left to ensure the opposite lane is clear while starting to accelerate to clear the eastbound lane. He would then look back to the right to see where he's going, and to perhaps acknowledge any filtering riders who may have to reduce speed to allow his emergence. At this point, he would see the biker approaching him at ~30mph, which would cause him to react and stop, although he would know that the collision was now inevitable.

Looking again at the video, the Passat can be seen emerging from the garage for a full 10 seconds before impact. It covers about 8.5 metres from first view to impact. It looks like the driver accelerates to about 2.5m/s (5.6mph) on impact. This means his average speed before this acceleration would be slower, perhaps 0.6m/s or 1.3mph. This would be nose poke speed, and dependant on angle of view, should allow the driver to clear the road to the right to his satisfaction at some point during his emerge, although he was clearly not expecting a filtering exocet!

The Passat's emergence from the garage would likely have been visible to the biker for most of the 10 seconds. It beggars belief that the biker chose to ignore this potential threat, and continue driving at a speed that would not only bring him into likely conflict with the Passat driver, but would also ensure that, if the Passat didn't do exactly as he supposed it should, he would have no contingency in place to avoid the collision.

Maybe the biker had his eyes shut. Maybe he was just impatient, and couldn't see the obvious risk.

Slightly more worryingly, it might be a trend among impatient motorcyclists to try to promote this kind of aggressive filtering to an acceptable behaviour that other road users have a requirement to anticipate.
That's asking other motorists to always drive perfectly in every aspect and to anticipate every unlikely event, to allow them to ride carelessly and aggressively. Road safety doesn't work like that I'm afraid. The judges in all of the case law I've read seem to think that way too.

Have you been watching a completely different video? Or do you not understand the term 'proceeding with caution'?

The Passat wasn't edging out slowly, it was accelerating to pull right out. And was in no way just poking his nose out, and then slowly edging forward. If he had been, then the motorcyclist would have easily seen the Passat in plenty of time.

What seems to be the obvious conclusion is the same as happens in many collisions. That the Passat driver didn't even consider the fact that a vehicle may be overtaking the stationary traffic to his right. And that all he did was wait to be waved out, and then checked to his left.

Even if someone waves you out, it is still your responsibility to make sure it is safe to do so. It is obvious that the Passat driver didn't do this. The motorcyclist wasn't breaking any law, and had right of way over the Passat. So this makes it quite clear that it was the Passat driver's fault. The only mistake by the motorcyclist was not riding more defensively (but this is not a legal requirement). I learned many years ago when riding a motorcycle, that you have to assume that every other road user is an idiot. And to expect people to pull out in front of you.

Jamie_Carter

brat wrote: »

At ~30mph, before he braked!? At what speed would you filter past stationary traffic to take account of things that you may reasonably expect to happen? Please don't tell me you would ride like this?

I assert that a 30mph filter is aggressive filtering, especially in poor weather and in a built up area where hazards abound.
That rider can't even look after himself! And you need to be able to do that if you're filtering.

You don't even know what speed he was doing!!!!

And even if he was doing 30mph (which probably wasn't advisable in the conditions), he wasn't breaking any laws, and had the right of way. The person clearly in the wrong was the Passat driver for accelerating across both lanes without properly checking that it was safe to do so.

pendulum

brat wrote: »

At ~30mph, before he braked!? At what speed would you filter past stationary traffic to take account of things that you may reasonably expect to happen? Please don't tell me you would ride like this?

I assert that a 30mph filter is aggressive filtering, especially in poor weather and in a built up area where hazards abound.
That rider can't even look after himself! And you need to be able to do that if you're filtering.

I don't believe he was going 30mph. You cannot trust a dashcam to judge speed. Different types of lenses do totally distort the distance and speed, especially of objects and items that appear to the far left or right of the frame. What doesn't lie is the actual collision itself, and that is only 10-15mph accident, suggesting to me he was doing around 20mph before he braked, which is within the recommended maximum speed differential recommended by several advanced riding organisations.

As you claim to work in the area of collision analysis, weren't you aware that camera lenses have such an effect?

brat

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

You don't even know what speed he was doing!!!!

there's a lot you can do with a video to analyse speed. The motorcyclist was averaging 11 to 13 metres per second (25 to 29mph) throughout the 30 frames (1.2 seconds @ 25fps) where I've been able to assess a distance. He was braking heavily during 18 of those frames.
An average speed range of 25 to 29 mph would mean an initial speed range of 27 to 31.5 mph if you have him braking at 0.5g.

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

And even if he was doing 30mph (which probably wasn't advisable in the conditions), he wasn't breaking any laws,...

Please don't filter anywhere near me if you believe his riding wasn't careless. I don't think you have a full grasp on the fundamental risks and responsibilities inherent with motorcycle filtering. To fail to ride carefully and slowly when filtering is careless.

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

...and had the right of way.

That is debatable. If your approach speed means that you are unable to be seen with a decent glance at the appropriate time from a careful, competent driver, then you do not have a 'right of way'.

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

The person clearly in the wrong was the Passat driver for accelerating across both lanes without properly checking that it was safe to do so.

As I said above, if a reasonable person takes the relevant look at the relevant point in the manoeuvre and judges that he has enough time and space to make the manoeuvre taking into account the hazard from filtering bikers, he has done what most people would accept is reasonable. If this car driver were to say he did that, you couldn't dispute it.
What is beyond doubt is that the rider's speed is unreasonable in the circumstances, and he will take the rap for that.

The last paragraph of this page is worth a read.
http://in-gear.co.uk/index.php?page=filtering

Jamie_Carter

pendulum wrote: »

As you claim to work in the area of collision analysis, weren't you aware that camera lenses have such an effect?

I don't believe that for a second. He doesn't have a clue about the law, the highway code, motorcycling, or even good standards of driving.

brat

pendulum wrote: »

I don't believe he was going 30mph. You cannot trust a dashcam to judge speed. Different types of lenses do totally distort the distance and speed, especially of objects and items that appear to the far left or right of the frame. What doesn't lie is the actual collision itself, and that is only 10-15mph accident, suggesting to me he was doing around 20mph before he braked, which is within the recommended maximum speed differential recommended by several advanced riding organisations.

As you claim to work in the area of collision analysis, weren't you aware that camera lenses have such an effect?

Absolutely, please see the above post for my answer to your points.
Could you please provide a link to an advanced riding organisation that states that a 20mph differential on a 30mph road in these conditions with this hazard definition is within their advisory limits for filtering. I don't dispute what you're saying, but I will question their advice with them.

Here is the MCN/IAM's view. http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/General-news/2011/July/jul2911-mcn-iam-better-riding-guide-filtering/
Their suggested maximum speed is 10 to 15 mph in the safest scenarios. If asked, IAM would certainly advise a lower speed in this scenario.
15mph would have allowed this motorcyclist to stop.

brat

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

I don't believe that for a second. He doesn't have a clue about the law, the highway code, motorcycling, or even good standards of driving.

You might choose to counter my points rather than take a sideswipe. Perhaps you could do so in the context of the advice provided to riders about filtering that I've given in this page from the Motorcycle News
http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/General-news/2011/July/jul2911-mcn-iam-better-riding-guide-filtering/

Jamie_Carter

brat wrote: »

there's a lot you can do with a video to analyse speed. The motorcyclist was averaging 11 to 13 metres per second (25 to 29mph) throughout the 30 frames (1.2 seconds @ 25fps) where I've been able to assess a distance. He was braking heavily during 18 of those frames.
An average speed range of 25 to 29 mph would mean an initial speed range of 27 to 31.5 mph if you have him braking at 0.5g.

If you knew anything about collision analysis you would know that in order to calculate speeds you would need to measure distances on the road (not just guess). And you could only get averages over a few frames, as he was decreasing speed rapidly.

So don't come out with a load of calculations to try and look clever, because you have actually achieved the opposite.

brat wrote: »

Please don't filter anywhere near me if you believe his riding wasn't careless. I don't think you have a full grasp on the fundamental risks and responsibilities inherent with motorcycle filtering. To fail to ride carefully and slowly when filtering is careless.

I didn't say he speed was sensible, but that's mainly because he should have been making allowances for idiots who don't look before they pull out. But it certainly wasn't illegal.

brat wrote: »

That is debatable. If your approach speed means that you are unable to be seen with a decent glance at the appropriate time from a careful, competent driver, then you do not have a 'right of way'.

Now you are really showing that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. The motorcyclist had the right of way. It is up to the car driver pulling across both lanes to make sure that both lanes are clear before pulling out. If they are unsure, then they don't pull out, it's as simple as that.

brat wrote: »

As I said above, if a reasonable person takes the relevant look at the relevant point in the manoeuvre and judges that he has enough time and space to make the manoeuvre taking into account the hazard from filtering bikers, he has done what most people would accept is reasonable. If this car driver were to say he did that, you couldn't dispute it.
What is beyond doubt is that the rider's speed is unreasonable in the circumstances, and he will take the rap for that.

Yet again you are provong your ignorance. It would be quite clear to anyone with common sense that he didn't pay due care and attention to other road users. And no court would believe that he did, especially with the overwhelming evidence (he pulled out in front of the motorcyclist who had the right of way, and knocked him off).

If the motorcyclist had been killed, then the passat driver would most likely do time for 'causing death by dangerous driving'.


I'm beginning to think that you are just trolling.

Jamie_Carter

brat wrote: »

You might choose to counter my points rather than take a sideswipe. Perhaps you could do so in the context of the advice provided to riders about filtering that I've given in this page from the Motorcycle News
http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/General-news/2011/July/jul2911-mcn-iam-better-riding-guide-filtering/

I'll answer your posts in my own time thankyou very much!

Advice in MCN is not the law!!!!!!