Whose fault was this one?

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!!!!!!

Lum

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

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.

At the time of the collision the car driver had only pulled across one lane... a lane of stationary cars!

Norman_Castle

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.

I'm a reasonable person. I don't accept what he has done is reasonable.