Court case verdict on biker's death.

I'd be inclined to go 50-50 on this one. Car partially to blame for not
making proper rearward obs before moving out and insufficient time
lapse between indicating and going for the overtake - bike to blame for
not giving enough room between himself and the car he's overtaking,
making it harder to be seen by those in front and speeding giving him
less time to slow down or stop in.

I didn't see much that overly concerned me in the video running up to
the crash itself - in fact, he rode pretty much like most ukrmers do
when they do a FOT or suchlike

 

You learn something new every day!
Are all new bikes like that? Some new EU regulation like the single headlight rule?

 

It's not that new - my '03 Tiger's the same.

--
Krusty

'03 Tiger 955i
'02 MV Senna (for sale) '96 Tiger (for sale)
'79 Fantic Hiro 250 (for sale) '81 Corvette (for sale)

 

I suppose that technically the rider was at fault for speeding and
overtaking into oncoming traffic but the car driver might have been
stuck in traffic for a fair while and decided that the bike would have
plenty more chances to overtake whereas he wouldn't so bollocks to it.

I think the number of car drivers that tuck in to the left to let you
go past is far higher than the ones that pull over to the centre line
and make it obvious that they're going before you do but they're out
there and they're not doing anything illegal.

 

Not at all. Sure, he was on the left of the road, but so what? Poor
driving, I agree, but very common. He was also very close to the car
in front, which would have made me think about what he might do next.

Time it. For how long was the bike visible? About half a second? If
the driver had looked in all his mirrors just a fraction of a second
before he started to move he could easily have missed the bike.

Not at all. He may have had every good reason to think it was clear,
but more importantly the onus is always on the overtaking vehicle, not
the one being overtaken. When he started his manoeuvre the bike was
still some considerable distance behind him, and had he been
sufficiently aware and cautious would have been able to abort his
overtake.

*splutter*

You what? As I recall, you're perfectly entitled to use the hatched
area "if necessary". And the biker was doing so anyway, so why fault
the driver for doing the same.

His driving was not brilliant, as I've said, but not so bad that any
sane CPS solicitor would consider charging him with causing the
accident.

I think you should examine your own riding style, rather than blaming
others for doing what they do all the time.

 

Been like that for some years, although I believe it was optional for
a while. But it's going to save the manufacturer a quid or two in any
case, so they perhaps adopted the idea earlier than was strictly
necessary. I know my K3 gixxer had no off option, but STR that UK-spec
ones did, so presumably the rule wasn't yet introduced.

 

Understandably. But, as you confirm, there are plenty of them out
there.

The biggest contributory factor to the accident, IMHO, was the
difference in speeds between the two vehicles, which made it less
likely that the car would see the bike in the first place, and less
likely that the bike would be able to avoid the car if pulled out. And
that speed differential was down solely to the biker.

 

Yes, & using it because you want to overtake a normal vehicle (as
opposed to say a tractor) isn't a necessary reason.

You might want to try some of those glasses of yours. The bikes didn't
cross into the hatched area at any time until the crash.

<splutter>

Pray tell how my riding style makes any difference when I'm going round
a roundabout in the right lane in heavy traffic at about 10mph, & the
car next to me in the left lane decides to change lanes & drives
straight into me?

Or when I'm doing 40mph on a straight bit of road in daylight with my
lights on, & a car pulls out of a side road without looking?

--
Krusty

'03 Tiger 955i
'02 MV Senna (for sale) '96 Tiger (for sale)
'79 Fantic Hiro 250 (for sale) '81 Corvette (for sale)

 

But that would mean 'speed kills', & we all know that's bollocks.

Incidentally I wonder what people would think if the car had pulled out
of a side road rather than pulled out to overtake; still the biker's
fault?

--
Krusty

'03 Tiger 955i
'02 MV Senna (for sale) '96 Tiger (for sale)
'79 Fantic Hiro 250 (for sale) '81 Corvette (for sale)

 

If only it were.

I suspect most people would judge that case, like the overtake, on its
merits.

 

That was me, doing 30 in my car when a car pulled out of a side road on
my left, it then stopped in front of me to look the other way.

WOOMBA!!

I got done for driving without attention, the daughter of the chief
inspector got let off as the innocent party.

Still her dad, the bastard, got nabbed excepting money to make speeding
charges disappear. Including one for his family.

I understand after a working life time of no illness he suddenly was
overcome with something so serious he had to retire early.

 

That must be another rule they sneaked in without telling me.
I'm sure that the last time I read a Highway Code it just said
that you could use the hatched area if safe, and didn't mention necessity.
That's how I've always behaved....

 

"130
Areas of white diagonal stripes or chevrons painted on the road. These
are to separate traffic lanes or to protect traffic turning right.

if the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter
the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do
so "

Well obviously. My idea of necessary has always been 'necessary in
order to get past the car in front'.

 

I thought that if the lines were broken, then it's fair game. Solid lines
mean don't cross.

 

<ding>

My instinctive reaction when reading that rule was "What the **** is
the point of putting the word necessary there if you're not going to
let anyone know what you mean by it ?"

"Necessary for overtake" ?
"Necessary to avoid an accident" ?
"Necessary to use that bit of road because I feel like it" ?

Cheers,

John

 

That's the version I was given by North Wales plod after I was done
for crossing them on the Chirk bypass.

He reckoned that the ones with solid lines as boundaries should be
treated as a central reservation whereas the dotted lines indicated
that it wasn't a 'third lane' such as you used to get on long
stretches of the A5 but you could still use it when needed.

 

On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:40:15 +0100, Mick Whittingham

snip>

Oddly enough I had a myopic driver nearly sideswipe me as I overtook
him on the exit from a roundabout this afternoon.

I was on the Tenere which is a fairly obvious bike iyswim and the
driver neither indicated nor looked in his mirrors before pulling out
to overtake the car in front of him right as I drew level with his
door. This was on a single carriageway road btw, not a dual
carriageway where such acts are more likely.

A bit of very obvious sign language let him know my views on his
driving and he didn't seem very keen on catching up with me for a more
full on discussion even though I was ambling along the road at about
60mph and he'd obviously been in a hurry 30 seconds earlier.

 

Best fun is overtaking the overtaker at some differential.

 

Isn't this where we started?

ISTR once using a conveniently placed lay-by on the right as a third lane....

 

Yes, but I often slow down to overtake for the reason seen on the
video. 'Too close too fast kills', is how I look at it. Doesn't make a
nice snappy soundbite, though.