Biker's death filmed - horrific.

[Ben@Forest]

Both of their actions were clearly criminal.

The car driver's was a crime of negligence; getting complacent and failing to look properly resulting in the death of a motorcyclist. I maintain that the car driver was the one mainly responsible for this crash.

The motorcyclists was a crime of arrogance. He knew the law, he will have been told his entire life about the dangers of speeding yet made a conscious decision to do it. The attitude was "the law does not apply to me" or "it won't happen to me...". This attitude possibly resulted in his own death.

Surely both actions were criminal in the full sense of the law. Not looking at the turn was criminal and speeding on the motorbike was criminal. Say the biker had come off at 100mph through losing control of the bike and the bike had hurtled on to kill a passing pedestrian he would (if he'd survived) been in the dock. I also think that at 100mph he was highly likely to die if he'd come off but at 60mph he was far more likely to survive, so speed must have been a factor in his own death.

[Bicycler]

Surely both actions were criminal in the full sense of the law.

I think that is what I said: "Both of their actions were clearly criminal"

Say the biker had come off at 100mph through losing control of the bike and the bike had hurtled on to kill a passing pedestrian he would (if he'd survived) been in the dock.

In that situation he probably would, yes. It doesn't mean that the car driver wasn't primarily responsible for the collision that actually did happen.

I also think that at 100mph he was highly likely to die if he'd come off but at 60mph he was far more likely to survive, so speed must have been a factor in his own death.

"Must" implies a certainty that "highly likely" can't provide. We are speculating. I think I went as far as I could by saying "This attitude possibly resulted in his own death." At the end of the day that doesn't alter the fact that the collision was caused by the car turning across the motorcyclist's path.

If this had been a near miss or had the motorcyclist survived unscathed then I would be all for prosecuting both for their dangerous driving. I also believe that those who technically have priority still have a duty of care to other road users and that extends to anticipating and where possible mitigating their mistakes. I believe not doing so is itself negligent. There is no doubt in my mind that the motorcyclist was extremely reckless and that recklessness could just have easily resulted in the death of another road user. However, in this case, I think the responsibility lies primarily with the car driver

[Flinders]

If the bike's speed was such that the car could not have seen it before pulling out, then it isn't the car driver's fault. It depends on the length of road that is visible from the turning.
The more the speed of the motorbike, the less time the driver would have had to see it - and you have to look both ways when pulling out.
Of course, one reason for speed limits is to make it possible to see traffic when pulling out.

Today, on the bike, I pulled out left at a junction when there was no traffic visible, and a car came up very fast behind me, I'm pretty sure he would have been speeding. If he'd hit me, it would not have been my fault, but the driver might have argued I pulled out in front of him when I should have seen him. Only if his speed had been established could anyone have known otherwise.

[Bicycler]

If the bike's speed was such that the car could not have seen it before pulling out, then it isn't the car driver's fault. It depends on the length of road that is visible from the turning.
The more the speed of the motorbike, the less time the driver would have had to see it - and you have to look both ways when pulling out.
Of course, one reason for speed limits is to make it possible to see traffic when pulling out.

Agreed but have you seen the video? That wasn't the case here. The road was pretty darn straight. The car was facing towards the oncoming bike wishing to make a right turn across its path. The driver admitted to not seeing either the bike or car coming towards him. If there had been the slightest bit of doubt about whether he ought to have seen it the driver would not have pleaded guilty.

[mjr]

Agreed but have you seen the video? That wasn't the case here. The road was pretty darn straight. The car was facing towards the oncoming bike wishing to make a right turn across its path. The driver admitted to not seeing either the bike or car coming towards him. If there had been the slightest bit of doubt about whether he ought to have seen it the driver would not have pleaded guilty.

I've watched the video. I was trying to avoid doing so. I know that road and that junction very well. I worked in Norwich for years, but I don't drive it so often now. The car was turning into Wood Lane. Yes, the road is straight, but that junction is in a dip and blind over the brows both front and back. If I remember correctly, I think the motorbike would not be seen until it was level with the advance direction sign, but that's still six seconds before impact and the car only passes the point of no return two seconds before impact.

Even at the speed limit, I suspect it wouldn't have given enough extra time to brake - possibly to swerve, but that would be gambling on no car following the right-turner, plus the road surface through those junctions is usually pretty awful so braking might be impaired.

Has anyone here commented on the fact the biker had just left a race track? He pulls out from Norfolk Arena onto Saddlebow Road (2 or 3 roads away from where I sit typing this) which is 40mph max, yet his speedo in-shot shows him immediately accelerating to 60mph as far as I can tell (big notches every 20). There are lots of HGVs and agricultural vehicles turning on and off that road (that's part of why local campaigners got NCN1 diverted off it and onto a tarmac cycleway along the river bank), so he was fortunate not to meet any, or to lose control on any of the worn-out bits of that road. There's also a police base if you turn right out of the arena gates - shame no police passed and pulled him over. Basically, everything about Saddlebow Road screams that it's 40mph for good reason so I'm shocked to see a biker treat it like that... and there are quite a few bikers using it because C&A Superbikes is next to the police base and it's the nicest way for motorbikes from town to a lot of the fen villages. I know the car driver was also to blame, but should there be a compulsary "cooling off" rest before driving or riding away from a racetrack? Maybe a big "THINK" advert alongside or opposite the gates, too?

Also, thinking again, that probably means the biker did 35 miles in broad daylight along the A47 at up to 150% of the speed limit, probably including through the 6 or so villages (because the video also shows some dodgy overtaking just after leaving Little Fransham), and Norfolk Police didn't react before the crash, so I'm surprised they made such a big thing of this video. I'm also surprised that they let it be called an accident in the video.

[bovlomov]

For legal purposes and for awarding compensation, responsibility can be shared out. But in a wider sense, responsibility isn't a zero sum transaction (if he takes some then I have a bit less). I don't think there's any contradiction in saying that the car driver was responsible for the accident and the motorcyclist was responsible for the accident (meaning if either had acted properly then the accident wouldn't have happened). I'm talking theory here; I have no intention of watching the video.

If I see someone going through a red light on a crossing but I step out in front of them anyway, I may have legal right on my side, but I could hardly claim that I wasn't responsible for the accident. My responsibility is not affected by the driver's actions.

[robing]

Agreed but have you seen the video? That wasn't the case here. The road was pretty darn straight. The car was facing towards the oncoming bike wishing to make a right turn across its path. The driver admitted to not seeing either the bike or car coming towards him. If there had been the slightest bit of doubt about whether he ought to have seen it the driver would not have pleaded guilty.

I've watched the video. I was trying to avoid doing so. I know that road and that junction very well. I worked in Norwich for years, but I don't drive it so often now. The car was turning into Wood Lane. Yes, the road is straight, but that junction is in a dip and blind over the brows both front and back. If I remember correctly, I think the motorbike would not be seen until it was level with the advance direction sign, but that's still six seconds before impact and the car only passes the point of no return two seconds before impact.

Even at the speed limit, I suspect it wouldn't have given enough extra time to brake - possibly to swerve, but that would be gambling on no car following the right-turner, plus the road surface through those junctions is usually pretty awful so braking might be impaired.

Has anyone here commented on the fact the biker had just left a race track? He pulls out from Norfolk Arena onto Saddlebow Road (2 or 3 roads away from where I sit typing this) which is 40mph max, yet his speedo in-shot shows him immediately accelerating to 60mph as far as I can tell (big notches every 20). There are lots of HGVs and agricultural vehicles turning on and off that road (that's part of why local campaigners got NCN1 diverted off it and onto a tarmac cycleway along the river bank), so he was fortunate not to meet any, or to lose control on any of the worn-out bits of that road. There's also a police base if you turn right out of the arena gates - shame no police passed and pulled him over. Basically, everything about Saddlebow Road screams that it's 40mph for good reason so I'm shocked to see a biker treat it like that... and there are quite a few bikers using it because C&A Superbikes is next to the police base and it's the nicest way for motorbikes from town to a lot of the fen villages. I know the car driver was also to blame, but should there be a compulsary "cooling off" rest before driving or riding away from a racetrack? Maybe a big "THINK" advert alongside or opposite the gates, too?

Also, thinking again, that probably means the biker did 35 miles in broad daylight along the A47 at up to 150% of the speed limit, probably including through the 6 or so villages (because the video also shows some dodgy overtaking just after leaving Little Fransham), and Norfolk Police didn't react before the crash, so I'm surprised they made such a big thing of this video. I'm also surprised that they let it be called an accident in the video.

excellent and well considered post by someone who knows the area.

[bensonboo]

I must confess that I have seen the video but upon viewing a second time it had much more of a profound effect upon me, the reason? The first had no sound. The fact that the rider had time to call out before impact really shook me up, I freely admit I have ridden fast bikes and have been prosecuted for speeding on one too and I always thought probably what this rider did, "it wont happen to me". I have personally witnessed similar accidents and have had one myself although I wasn't speeding and the car pulled out of a side road resulting in numerous broken bones and gashes, but still it is the noise the rider utters that would slow me down today if I still rode a motorbike.
Shocking.
As for the comments, if the rider had survived but was lying there seriously injured, would those commenting stand over him calling him idiotic and moronic? Or would they leave that until a more suitable time had passed...
There is a time and place.
RIP.

[Bicycler]

What's a suitable length of time? It's not like this happened last week. As for a suitable time to judge the behaviour of those who die on the road, how about
when a video showing their fatal collision is released for the purpose of educating people about the danger of such behaviour?

It would be a mistake to gain from the video the impression that those who speed are only a danger to themselves. Let us not forget that the angel who gets killed speeding is no different from the devil who kills others speeding. You cannot risk one without the other. The deceased angels and the imprisoned devils are only different in media portrayal. In reality they are just people who have been selfish and stupid by speeding. Maybe widespread condemnation of someone for being so reckless might make it clear to other people who behave in a similar fashion that their behaviour is selfish and reckless and unacceptable in the eyes of society. I'd happily sacrifice social niceties in the hope of fewer casualties.

[Phil Fouracre]

Interesting perspective from some posters, I commented earlier in the thread that it could be seen as both parties contributing to the 'accident' Personally I've got to agree that the excessive speed was really the main problem. If the vid is posted to 'educate' then surely you would expect a wide range of responses, and know that you might not like them all, niceties probably wouldn't come into it. Watching the vid, I would have thought, riding a bike, approaching a junction/built up area, that you would have been slowing down, irrespective of any speed limit. Whatever you are riding/driving, surely anticipation is one of the most important skills you have to exercise.

[thirdcrank]

A couple of decades ago, a former colleague's son and a friend were killed on a pedestrian crossing on a 30mph road by the rider of a motorcycle travelling at very high speed. It goes without saying that the casualties weren't fitted with cameras so there was no record of their final moments. Their killer survived physically unharmed.

I'd not wish anyone dead or injured, but if there has to be a casualty when somebody decides to travel at a reckless speed on public roads, then IMO it might as well be the person who makes that decision, rather than anybody else.

[kwackers]

Personally I've got to agree that the excessive speed was really the main problem.

How can that possibly be true?

Suppose he was travelling at the speed limit, would he have survived?
Suppose the driver actually looked and thus didn't pull out, would he have survived?

The "main" problem was simply that the driver didn't look.

[Phil Fouracre]

Yeah, I agree totally that the driver should have looked properly and not pulled out, BUT, to travel at that speed, irrespective of any 'speed limits' with other vehicles around is not a good idea. Proximity to other drivers whose abilities you know nothing about increases the risks to you, especially if you are the more vulnerable one. Watching the vid, to approach a built up area and a junction with a vehicle in position to turn across you at 90 odd mph is silly. I've read on here, and experienced situations where drivers pull out of, or try and cross junctions at inappropriate times. Surely pure self preservation should make you cautious in these situations. Irritating though it is, why risk being 'in the right' but, dead?

[Bonefishblues]

I agree with both of the above posts.

Caused by the driver's lack of observation, and sadly a lack of defensive riding skill application by the motorcyclist left him without options on the way to his fatal accident.

[Postboxer]

I can't believe that the car driver didn't see the car that the biker overtook, unless it was so far up the road that it didn't need looking at, maybe the car driver looked up the road, saw that x hundred yards were clear, knowing the speed limit, assumed he had therefore a clear gap in which to turn, not anticipating the motorbike coming from behind the car and at excessive speed.

In terms of settling insurance claims, speeding doesn't mean you are liable for the accident, in this case the car driver should have seen the approaching biker.