Whose fault was this one?

Jamie_Carter

brat wrote: »

Not IAM braking, it's simple physics. A normal coefficient of sliding friction on a well used road would be about 0.7 in the dry, ~0.5 in the wet.


Obviously depends on its impact speed. The equation is s=u²/2μg where s= distance, u = speed, μ = coefficient of friction and g= acceleration due to gravity.

You really are trolling aren't you???

You don't have a clue what you are talking about :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Norman_Castle

scotsman4th wrote: »

Is the IAM braking thingiemebob in the wet or dry?

And how far would the bike have skidded if it hadnt been hit by the car.

The back wheel skidding is a bit misleading. On motorcycles there is very little weight on the back wheel under braking. Even on dry roads it will lock easily.

brat

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

You really are trolling aren't you???

You don't have a clue what you are talking about :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I'm interested in remedying misconceptions, and, as I've said, there is a real danger for motorcyclists and other vulnerable road users if they feel emboldened to ride in a way which you believe is lawful.

You appear to be saying that it's OK for one lane to be treated as a two lane section if there is sufficient room. Not only that, but you seem to be saying that all other road users should automatically understand and expect this.

Unfortunately this is just not the case.

Because they are narrower, some bikers and cyclists understandably feel that they could take advantage of that 'unused' lane width to make some progress. This is filtering and it is tolerated. The conflict is that the lateral space within a lane is part of the space that the established vehicle feels is under his control. They feel they should be entitled to move laterally within that lane to respond to approaching hazards, such as potholes, or pedestrians on the pavement, or simply to smooth their drive, and they feel they shouldn't be constantly having to check their rearview or their blind spot every time such a minor adjustment is required.
In recognition of the obvious risks inherent in filtering, and the significant likelihood that motorists, driving normally, may fail to expect the movement of the bike, the movement has been recognised as inherently dangerous to the degree that extra responsibilities have been imposed on it.
Highway Code advise "take care and keep your speed low"
The activity has been defined in court as "fraught with danger".

The range of advice on filtering has one common theme - that we should filter in such a way to be able to resolve all of the problems that our unexpected road position could potentially create

All of this counsel and advice must inform our attitude to filtering if we choose to do it.
To significantly fail to take that extra care is the offence of "driving without due care and attention" contrary to S3 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act.

Norman_Castle

The conflict is that the lateral space within a lane is part of the space that the established vehicle feels is under his control.

In this instance, the established vehicles were waiting in the line of traffic. The car driver was crossing the lane which is much more likely to cause conflict than the motorcyclist who was using the lane in the direction intended.
The car driver failed to recognise the risk to others of his actions and failed to act accordingly.
To significantly fail to take that extra care is the offence of "driving without due care and attention" contrary to S3 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act.

brat

Norman_Castle wrote: »

brat wrote:

The conflict is that the lateral space within a lane is part of the space that the established vehicle feels is under his control.

In this instance, the established vehicles were waiting in the line of traffic. The car driver was crossing the lane which is much more likely to cause conflict than the motorcyclist who was using the lane in the direction intended.

I should have written "One of the main conflicts is...". Throughout this thread we have recognised that there is likely to be an additional significant conflict between the filtering biker and other road users making moves that they believe to be safe under normal expected road use, then find that they are in a situation they didn't expect.

Norman_Castle wrote: »

The car driver failed to recognise the risk to others of his actions and failed to act accordingly.

I don't dispute that he could have done things differently, and in consequence avoided the collision, but I believe that his actions could fall within the "counsel of perfection" type of omission, as described in the case law when describing the emergence of a vehicle in very similar circumstances, but emerging at a reported 5 to 8 miles per hour rather than this slower speed.

Of course each case must be taken on its own merits, and in this case there was the opportunity for a decent view. But that view opportunity was much more available to the bike rider, being higher, and who, by virtue of his filtering, must be hyper-alert to the risks inherent in the activity he has chosen to undertake.

To significantly fail to take that extra care is the offence of "driving without due care and attention" contrary to S3 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act.

The video proves that the motorcyclist was riding carelessly.

The driver of the car would have to be asked a few questions in interview. It may be that he admits carelessness in what he says, ie "I looked left and accelerated out without bothering to look right." However, he might say "I looked right at the appropriate time and couldn't see anything in the 30 to 40 metres of the lane visible outside the queue of traffic. I then decided to accelerate to pull out, because I believed my glance had cleared sufficient distance for me not to be affected by filtering bikers which clearly shouldn't be doing anywhere near the speed this biker was doing."
That's not careless.

NBLondon

brat wrote: »

You appear to be saying that it's OK for one lane to be treated as a two lane section if there is sufficient room. Not only that, but you seem to be saying that all other road users should automatically understand and expect this.

This is an interesting grey area really.... There are certainly places where locals will create 2 lanes if the carriageway is (barely) wide enough because they know what is happening ahead at a junction/roundabout. Here's an example I see most days Pic 1 the slip road is marked as one lane but traffic usually treats it as two so as to merge faster at the top Pic 2 You could even think of this as cars filtering past larger vehicles... When it's busy, 2 slow-moving lanes, this is obvious. When less so, a driver keeping left might possibly expect a biker to come past on the right but not necessarily a car - they will be looking ahead for a gap to join the dual carriageway.

They feel they should be entitled to move laterally within that lane to respond to approaching hazards, such as potholes, or pedestrians on the pavement, or simply to smooth their drive, and they feel they shouldn't be constantly having to check their rearview or their blind spot every time such a minor adjustment is required.

I agree. That's why you overtake with a lateral space - to allow for this - and why filtering bikes are supposed to do it carefully.

I still believe that the emerging car was concentrating on looking for a gap in the lane they were joining and failed to double-check right for overtakers while the bike was overtaking/filtering somewhat recklessly. 80/20 in favour of the biker.

brat

NBLondon wrote: »

This is an interesting grey area really.... There are certainly places where locals will create 2 lanes if the carriageway is (barely) wide enough because they know what is happening ahead at a junction/roundabout. Here's an example I see most days Pic 1 the slip road is marked as one lane but traffic usually treats it as two so as to merge faster at the top Pic 2 You could even think of this as cars filtering past larger vehicles... When it's busy, 2 slow-moving lanes, this is obvious. When less so, a driver keeping left might possibly expect a biker to come past on the right but not necessarily a car - they will be looking ahead for a gap to join the dual carriageway.

Some roads lend themselves to this kind of behaviour more than others. I'm sure you could find a few roads where two lanes are formed out of one, although in your specific example there are two lanes of traffic entering the slip road from the Holiday Inn - Pic1 - so its likely that it was once a defined two lane road - indeed it's possible that the lane lines have been worn off by HGV tyres. I notice that there is a lane merge arrow at the top of the slip road too - Pic2 - a definite indication that the road is designed to be two lanes. The other point of note is that there are no emerging hazards throughout, and no danger of anyone wishing to right turn through any established lane.
By contrast, in this case, the entry to this particular part of Bridge Road from the Brook Lane Roundabout has an arrow encouraging and reminding drivers that it is one lane of traffic, and this is enforced by the presence of hatch markings narrowing the road lanes. Pic3.

I still believe that the emerging car was concentrating on looking for a gap in the lane they were joining and failed to double-check right for overtakers while the bike was overtaking/filtering somewhat recklessly. 80/20 in favour of the biker.

You may be right about where the car driver's concentration was. But you may also be wrong. If the car driver says (as I believe he probably will), that he looked at the appropriate point and didn't see any bike despite there being a decent view, then pulled out, it's an acceptable explanation supportable by the video evidence that can't be easily countered without moving well into the realms of demanding he be a perfect driver at every opportunity. It's then down to the bike rider to explain why he was unable to protect himself and the car driver, which all the advice on filtering says you must do. I don't think he can.

almillar

Lum, it is, yes, but it's approaching a junction, there's a queue and it's on the left of the lane, leaving a big gap at the right, and it's near a junction. Even if it wasn't a wide lane, the Passat should still be looking both ways whilst pulling out.
What if that biker hadn't existed, and the black car behind it was the one that crashed instead? Would that change any opinions? What's wrong with driving beside other cars, in a wide lane, to join a different queue?
I do take your point that there's an onus on the biker to make sure he proceeds safely when he 'creates' another lane, but surely there's a bigger onus on the Passat to look where he's going, and to give way?!
Brat:

You appear to be saying that it's OK for one lane to be treated as a two lane section if there is sufficient room. Not only that, but you seem to be saying that all other road users should automatically understand and expect this.

Unfortunately this is just not the case.

This is the exact opposite of my opinion. Other road users, when pulling out onto a road, should expect anything, from either direction. I do hope anyone that passed their test does understand this! You mention motorcyclists specifically again, as if he was squeezing through a tight spot, but a car followed him, which means there was stacks of space for the bike.

brat

almillar wrote: »

brat wrote:

You appear to be saying that it's OK for one lane to be treated as a two lane section if there is sufficient room. Not only that, but you seem to be saying that all other road users should automatically understand and expect this.

Unfortunately this is just not the case.

This is the exact opposite of my opinion. Other road users, when pulling out onto a road, should expect anything, from either direction. I do hope anyone that passed their test does understand this! You mention motorcyclists specifically again, as if he was squeezing through a tight spot, but a car followed him, which means there was stacks of space for the bike.

The point I'm making about the one/two lane thing is that it is not OK to treat one lane of a road as two marked lanes. Other road users won't expect it to be treated as such, and it will not be part of their expectations.

The significant difference is that if you are in one lane of traffic in a one lane road, you are expected to drive with the flow of traffic in that lane, or up to the speed limit if quieter, because that is the design of the lane. If you choose to make a second 'lane' then you are by definition filtering and you have to abide by the restrictions imposed by that, which means 10-15mph max differential, less if hazardous, and be aware that by filtering, you are taking the added onus of protecting yourself and others from the consequence of your filtering activity. The implication through all the HC, case law, IAM and other advice is that filtering is your decision, only do it if it's safe, do it slowly and carefully because if you go faster than advised and it goes wrong through someone reasonably not expecting you to be where you are, you will be in the wrong.

If it was a car filtering, I'd expect exactly the same behaviour from them.
I filter through traffic every day on my cycle commute, past cars and through a pedestrianised zone. If a car or pedestrian collided with me because he didn't expect me to be where I was, I'd blame no-one but myself in 99% of cases. If you don't like that added responsibility, don't filter.

Jamie_Carter

brat wrote: »

I'm interested in remedying misconceptions, and, as I've said, there is a real danger for motorcyclists and other vulnerable road users if they feel emboldened to ride in a way which you believe is lawful.

You appear to be saying that it's OK for one lane to be treated as a two lane section if there is sufficient room. Not only that, but you seem to be saying that all other road users should automatically understand and expect this.

Unfortunately this is just not the case.

Because they are narrower, some bikers and cyclists understandably feel that they could take advantage of that 'unused' lane width to make some progress. This is filtering and it is tolerated. The conflict is that the lateral space within a lane is part of the space that the established vehicle feels is under his control. They feel they should be entitled to move laterally within that lane to respond to approaching hazards, such as potholes, or pedestrians on the pavement, or simply to smooth their drive, and they feel they shouldn't be constantly having to check their rearview or their blind spot every time such a minor adjustment is required.
In recognition of the obvious risks inherent in filtering, and the significant likelihood that motorists, driving normally, may fail to expect the movement of the bike, the movement has been recognised as inherently dangerous to the degree that extra responsibilities have been imposed on it.
Highway Code advise "take care and keep your speed low"
The activity has been defined in court as "fraught with danger".

The range of advice on filtering has one common theme - that we should filter in such a way to be able to resolve all of the problems that our unexpected road position could potentially create

All of this counsel and advice must inform our attitude to filtering if we choose to do it.
To significantly fail to take that extra care is the offence of "driving without due care and attention" contrary to S3 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act.

I suspect you don't even drive, as you have very little grasp of the HC, let alone road law.