Safe Speed Forums

I noticed in MCN this week a case of local interest. A motorcyclist was badly injured when his Honda VFR750 collided with a Renault Clio which was one metre over the centre white line. The biker wasn't speeding but in the opinion of the two judges was 50% to blame for the collision because if he had been travelling slower he would, in their opinion, have been able to avoid the Clio. The conclusion of MCN was that the legal system is biased against bikers. Do you agree?
I know you have to be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear but that can only apply to stationary vehicles or other obstructions. If it had been a car not a motorbike in the scenario described, a collision would have been almost inevitable.

I think that there is an inbuilt bias against motorcyclists...

Those who have never experienced riding a bike (especially a powered one) will be oblivious to the fact that inertia and the 'gyroscopic' effect really do mean that stopping on a sixpence is in reality not possible; nor are wild avoiding manoeuvres generally possible without the bike biting back.

I think anyone who is going to make a judgement on collisions involving bikes should have an idea (by riding one at a point in the past) of how they handle

I see. So now us bikers have to travel even slower to compensate for the lack of spatial awareness a car driver, safe in their hermetically sealed boxes, may display eh?
Tell you what. Why don't we all just flog our bikes and leave the roads to fu*&wit car drivers so that they if they wander across the road at least they'll hit something equally (if not more) solid than they are.
Jesus tonight and tomorrow - as my mother used to (and still does) say.

What can you say? what f*****g sense does that make?
So Holly Wells and Jessica chapman are 50% to blame for their own deaths because they should have fought Ian Huntley harder.
Those judges are wankers!

not that we know the road layout & conditions here.

even if one party is out of position (i.e. over the white line). if the other party has time to avoid the incident but doesn't for whatever reason (distracted, poor observation) then you could argue they share some of the blame.

what constitutes avoidable even if you are the party 'in the right' is open to debate...
would many questions be asked if this was a head on with one car on the wrong side of the road? i guess not.

It would seem that a judges OPINION is unquestionably right.
What if their opinion was that the biker had deliberately held a line to teach the other driver a lesson? It would'nt make it fact, it would just be an opinion.

Whatever happened to "Beyond reasonable doubt"?

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

I'd recommend caution instead of jumping to conclusions about a judgment based on a news report. It's highly likely that the judge knew a great deal more about the circumstances than we do.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

That's the thing about those motorcyclists. Hard as nails, they are. Where the HGV drivers are encased with up to 40 tonnes of protection, car drivers a tonne and a half, motorcyclists position their bikes so as to drive other more vulnerable road users of the road through the intimidation factor of 'getting hurt'. They adopt this overt aggressive posture with just their leathers on - such hard cases!

I would comment for longer about the astounding remarks of the judges, but I have a pink pig flying over the roof at the moment which I must put back in the stable so I am otherwise indisposed to do so.

oink oink

Those 2 judges need to be made to spend a week riding pillion with a London despatch rider, they'd soon change their tune afterwards.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

Notwithstanding that the facts of the case may have been misreported, the notion that a particular collision with another road user might have been avoided by going slower is demonstrably untrue and misleading.

Cheers
Peter

If he had been travelling faster he could, in my opinion, have avoided the Clio.

If he had not been travelling at all he would, in my opinion, have avoided the Clio.

If he had been riding a more manoeverable motorcycle he could, in my opinion, have avoided the Clio.

If he had crashed through a hedge when he saw the oncoming car he would, in my opinion, have avoided the Clio.

Utterly absurd.

IME it's bikers who lack spacial awareness - particularly around right-hand bends. I've lost count of the times a biker has come towards me with his point of contact on his side of the road but with three quarters of him and his bike on mine.

_________________
Will

Is that all bikers, or just some?

I've lost count of the number of times I've had no choice but to ride round right hand bends in the right hand side of the lane due to the current practice of dumping gravel everywhere in lieu of resurfacing and waiting for passing traffic to either grind it into the tarmac or fling it into the verges.

It's just some and most bikers ride responsibly. The point of my post is that G-forces play tricks with your perception of up-and-down when cornering. FWIW, I'm an ex-biker who nearly found out about this effect the hard way. I'll agree that loose gravel is a menace - but having the bike slide from under you is less likely to be fatal than head-butting the A-pillar of an oncoming vehicle at a combined speed of 120 mph or so.

_________________
Will

What, so we can lowside into Armco or road signs instead?

Not on the roads in question. However, I suspect that a lowside into armco is less likely to be fatal than head-butting an oncoming A-pillar, which I suspect will probably break your neck.

Of course, the best course of action would be to ride in a manner that accounts for all hazards - whether from road surface or oncoming vehicles. That said, if your goal is to avoid the chippings, it is surely better to follow the chipping-less tracks left by four-wheeled road-users than to do as the bikers I've seen, who have their point of contact just to their left of the white line - one of the areas of the road likely to accumulate chippings.

_________________
Will

and the metal covers

and the thermoplastic paint

and the unofficial diesel dumps

and the seams and trenches left by your friendly local [gas|water|cable] company

and the overbanding

and the outside wheel-track that's polished to a mirror finish.

Just pointing out that positioning on a motorcycle is a complex issue and I doubt that the two judges in question have any experience of it. I also doubt that they paid the site of the incident a visit.

However, as you say, headbutting an A-pillar is not a good idea even if it has crossed a solid white line into your path.

That's only true within the range of responsible speeds. Clearly reckless speeds massively increase the chances of not being able to avoid a collision.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I most certainly didn't mention the A-pillar crossing the line into the path of the motorcyclist. Rather it's the other way around - with the rider crossing the median into the path of the oncoming A-pillar.

There is an issue here of which many motorcyclists seem oblivious and that ignorance can kill. Hard cornering around a right-hand bend with your point of contact close to the median line is not a good idea. Do that and most of you and your bike are on the wrong side of the road - and that's fact (ye canny change the laws of physics, Jim). However, to the motorcyclist, "gravity" has changed. It no longer acts vertically - it acts along a line that joins the centre of mass and the point of contact with the road and is inclined when cornering. This can give the false impression that you are on your side of the road when you are not.

Of course you have to be aware of all those other hazards and act accordingly - but that doesn't reduce the need to be aware of and take account of this one.

_________________
Will

Not read this article - must have missed it.

Split liability decision?

Sounds like an insurance claim to me whereby the insured have disputed stories. Surprised no police involvement if SI though - as one or the other or both would be prosecuted for a careless/undue dependent on the accident investigation.

As for the ruling and "if he'd been going slower" Canot speculate really as do not know :

1. Width of each carriageway and was the Clio over the line because driver was allowing space to a pedal cyclist or other hazard?

2. Was it a "sudden" swerve over the line on the part of the Clio? No idea from the post - but apparently judges did not have any evidence to suggest this - given the decision.

3. Why was the biker positioned where he was? Had he space to move in or had he overtaken something and not moved far enough into the lane?

4. If he'd overtaken something - perhaps he had somehow missed the positioning manoeuvre of the approaching Clio which caused it to straddle the white line by a metre?

Trouble is - only those judges, insured, insurance companies and perhaps police if involved know the true set of circumstances.

But one thing sticks out to me

Neither of these were using C.O.A.S.T And as such both are to blame.

ie.
Clio driver should have been looking ahead and noted the position of the biker and biker should have been looking ahead and noting the position of the Clio.

As for the speed - neither were speeding as I read the post - and thus human error by both involved.

Sure as heck emphasises that sole focus on speed is not a correct approach - and a fully comprehensive look at improving basic skills is of much more value long term!

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.