Whose fault was this one?

Arg

gpc273 wrote: »

From your comments I take it you don't ride a motorbike, how could he possible jump over the bike??
A simple swerve and back onto the riding line, job done, albeit with a lot of swearing.
There are no oncoming vehicles and its a wide road.

These things called legs and pegs work together to lift said person high enough to lift them over the bike and bonnet of car.
If it had been a few moments later there would have been a car in the other lane coming towards him.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

Lee_Jones wrote: »

1 - The rider is riding along the offside of the stationary/ slow moving traffic at a speed that was not excessive.

2- He was positioned towards the crown of the road and as far from the side of the traffic he was passing, thus affording himself the maximum view of any traffic emerging and also giving himself maximum exposure to anyone pulling out.

3- There was acres of space that he was riding in, it was hardly skimming past the wing mirrors of the queued traffic and the fact that some cars followed behind the biker suggests that it would be local custom for there to be a queued lane and other vehicles passing down the offside. Thus raising the expectation of the plonker pulling out that there could be vehicles coming along the side of the queued vehicles.

4- The rider had his lights on, the car did not.

5- The car driver simply relied on a gap left as an assumption that everything was alright. They completely breached their duty of care when pulling out to exercise extreme caution.

6- The car driver just pulled out in one continuous movement at an excessive speed, rather then very slowly and gradually creeping forwards.

7- The queued vehicles were all cars, so no trucks or large vehicles obscuring view, so afforded them a better chance of seeing anything coming, yet clearly failed to see the biker, most likely because they were too busy looking to their left before reaching the centre of the road.

8- The car driver emerged at an angle, which reduced their field of vision more than if they pulled across the traffic at a right angle, which would have prevented the nose from sticking out as far and give them an earlier view of approaching traffic.

9- This wasn't just a "nose poker" it was a deluded idiot just bulldozing their way out without forethought.

I maintain the car driver takes the lions share of blame for this.

car did have his side lights on.

was not a bulldozing idiot, he wasnt using any excessive speed and he stopped on a pins head.

as the biker was on the crown of the road with the best view why didnt he anticipate that something maybe coming out of that garage.

if he was not riding with excessive speed to the road conditions whilst passing stationary traffic explain why he skids and wobbles and brakes that late, at the end of the day, if he was travelling a bit slower, with caution to the traffic to the left of him pehaps he may have avoided the collision alot of choice words exchanged but at least he wouldnt of been t boned.

its a single lane untill the road marking tell you its not, locals may use to pass down the traffic wating for the left hand lane thats poor judgment and impatience. people pull to the left because they know if they sit in the lane they know someone is going to stand on the horn and give allsorts of fingers to get over.

but also dont think the driver of the passat is blamelss.

Hoonercat

Arg wrote: »

These things called legs and pegs work together to lift said person high enough to lift them over the bike and bonnet of car.

I think you've been watching too many action movies, you don't seriously believe that he should, or even could, have done this do you?

Hoonercat

if he was not riding with excessive speed to the road conditions whilst passing stationary traffic explain why he skids and wobbles and brakes that late

Because he doesn't have ABS, and it is ridiculously easy to lock the brakes on a motorcycle, especially in wet weather. The brakes on a motorcycle are nowhere near as good as the brakes on a modern car.

brat

Lee_Jones wrote: »

1 - The rider is riding along the offside of the stationary/ slow moving traffic at a speed that was not excessive.

My best estimate of the biker’s average speed is 11 to 13 metres per second (25 to 29 mph). In the absence of two defined lanes, the motorcyclist can claim to be doing one of two things, ‘overtaking’ or ‘filtering’. If he’s overtaking, he shouldn’t be, because the highway code says;
162. Before overtaking you should make sure

• the road is sufficiently clear ahead
• there is a suitable gap in front of the road user you plan to overtake

163. Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues.

166. DO NOT overtake if there is any doubt, or where you cannot see far enough ahead to be sure it is safe.

167. DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example

• approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
• where traffic is queuing at junctions or road works
• when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down.

If he was filtering, the highway code says that he must do this with care, and slowly;
H.C. 88. When in traffic queues look out for pedestrians crossing between vehicles and vehicles emerging from junctions or changing lanes. Position yourself so that drivers in front can see you in their mirrors. Additionally, when filtering in slow-moving traffic, take care and keep your speed low.

We must also accept as persuasive the comment of the judge in the case of Powell v Moody when he said the bike rider "must be incredibly careful when overtaking when he cannot see what is in front of him."

So clearly the biker was riding in an inappropriate manner in an inappropriate location, because an ‘overtake’ wasn’t appropriate, and his ‘filter’ was being done at a ridiculously inappropriate speed.

Lee_Jones wrote: »

2- He was positioned towards the crown of the road and as far from the side of the traffic he was passing, thus affording himself the maximum view of any traffic emerging and also giving himself maximum exposure to anyone pulling out.

Exactly, he must have had a perfect view of the road ahead, the gap created to allow the motor car to emerge from the petrol station, the 5 seconds of movement of that car to the point of impact, the indicators and sidelights of that car. These were hazards he had to be looking out for because his riding speed and position was placing him at risk of conflict with another motorist who would not be expecting him coming at speed. His riding shows that he was devoid of a safety plan, and intent on achieving his own goals, ie to get as far through the queue as he possibly could, without due care to his own or others safety.

Lee_Jones wrote: »

3- There was acres of space that he was riding in, it was hardly skimming past the wing mirrors of the queued traffic and the fact that some cars followed behind the biker suggests that it would be local custom for there to be a queued lane and other vehicles passing down the offside. Thus raising the expectation of the plonker pulling out that there could be vehicles coming along the side of the queued vehicles.

Local custom causes drivers and riders to become blase to the risks, because they get away with it time and time again. Unfortunately local custom plays no part in defence of a driving misdemeanour. It’s no good to simply say in court “that’s the way we always do it” when clearly the road layout suggests you shouldn’t.

Lee_Jones wrote: »

4- The rider had his lights on, the car did not.

You’re wrong. The car had sidelights at least.

Lee_Jones wrote: »

5- The car driver simply relied on a gap left as an assumption that everything was alright. They completely breached their duty of care when pulling out to exercise extreme caution.

You don’t know that at all. The car driver could have and possibly did look right at the appropriate time, remembering he also needs to look left, because having bisected the eastbound lane of traffic the left view is now the most significant one. Had he looked right at the appropriate time the bike most likely wouldn’t have featured in his view because of its speed; he may even have been in the lane of traffic, then made a decision to create the extra lane. Note that no-one else in the 40 seconds of video up to the crash had created a second lane of traffic.

Lee_Jones wrote: »

6- The car driver just pulled out in one continuous movement at an excessive speed, rather then very slowly and gradually creeping forwards.

Again you don’t know that the movement was continuous, and it certainly wasn’t excessive, averaging 2.0 to 2.5 mph. This would be enough time for a reasonable look for filtering cyclists, and it’s unlikely, given the speed of the biker, that the car driver would have had the opportunity to see anyone.

Lee_Jones wrote: »

7- The queued vehicles were all cars, so no trucks or large vehicles obscuring view, so afforded them a better chance of seeing anything coming, yet clearly failed to see the biker, most likely because they were too busy looking to their left before reaching the centre of the road.

8- The car driver emerged at an angle, which reduced their field of vision more than if they pulled across the traffic at a right angle, which would have prevented the nose from sticking out as far and give them an earlier view of approaching traffic.

These are simply rehashes of a previous point about view, and clearly the better opportunity for view would be with the biker who, sitting high, could see the movement of the car, and should be clearly and proactively looking for movement that might impinge on his intended path, because he should know that his position and speed are likely to be unexpected.

Lee_Jones wrote: »

9- This wasn't just a "nose poker" it was a deluded idiot just bulldozing their way out without forethought.

I get the feeling your hyperbole is evidence of an inherent bias towards the biker. Deluded, Idiot, Bulldozing!? This is clearly nonsense.

Lee_Jones wrote: »

I maintain the car driver takes the lions share of blame for this.

As you may gather, I entirely disagree with you. Looking at the 80/20 of Powell v Moody, I'd be tempted to knock it down to 60/40 because the car could have been a little slower moving out, but I'd knock it back up to 80/20 or perhaps even 95/5 because of the speed of the bike, especially in the conditions.

sharnad

Biker should not have been driving like he did

Arg

What about the black car behind him?

Hoonercat wrote: »

I think you've been watching too many action movies, you don't seriously believe that he should, or even could, have done this do you?

He could have easily done it and avoided the risk of going into oncoming traffic or whatever damage he took from smashing straight into the bonnet.

scaredofdebt

90% car, 10% biker at fault.

Accidents rarely have a totally innocent party, the biker should have been going a little slower for the conditions and also should have been expecting a car to pull out.

But it's mainly the car drivers fault for not giving way.

BertTheRaccoon

Arg wrote: »

What about the black car behind him?

He could have easily done it and avoided the risk of going into oncoming traffic or whatever damage he took from smashing straight into the bonnet.

Standing on the pegs and trying to do a stuntman tumble is likely to result in a greater degree of injury.

Brat - the dude in the car didn't stop until impact.

I'd personally have a wager with you on this one if we could ever find out the outcome. I maintain the car driver being clobbered for the majority share of blame. This is assuming he has competent representation, not some factory firm muppets appointed by his insurers/ LEI policy.

brat

Lee_Jones wrote: »

Standing on the pegs and trying to do a stuntman tumble is likely to result in a greater degree of injury.

I recall an advanced riding instructor telling me that it's something he'd consider if the circs demanded. I recall seeing the damage to the petrol tank of a hyabusa where the rider (who did almost the same as our lad in the vid but at about 45mph) died through serious pelvic injuries, and I think I'd rather take my chances with a jump. However I don't think anyone would have enough time to do it tbh.

Brat - the dude in the car didn't stop until impact.

He wouldn't, he would have been looking the other (correct) way until just before or on impact.

I'd personally have a wager with you on this one if we could ever find out the outcome. I maintain the car driver being clobbered for the majority share of blame. This is assuming he has competent representation, not some factory firm muppets appointed by his insurers/ LEI policy.

It is interesting to see different views on liability. I'd much rather see personal responsibility as the key attribute for driving, in other words defensive driving. I like to think of it as the ability to maintain one's personal safety cushion, and never to consciously cast it aside for any other perceived advantage.

In that vein, I like to promote the punishment of wilful injudicious action over innocent error or omission. It pleases me that the Powell v Moody judge seems to have have determined the proportionality of liability using that ethos.