Contraflow:
If Chas (captain of industry) hadn’t died, he’d be on here right now saying that there’s an illness associated with having to have the last word.
Did his ship sink or was he another ladyboy victim?
Own Account Driver:
Contraflow:
If Chas (captain of industry) hadn’t died, he’d be on here right now saying that there’s an illness associated with having to have the last word.Did his ship sink or was he another ladyboy victim?
Last I heard, he had got one of those six inch metal spikes pointed at the driver’s throat that he was always banging on about fitted to his own steering wheel.
Contraflow:
This sums up motorcyclists for me.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUsrAV0VWsU
Some on here will say it was the red Audi’s fault for having the temerity to be parked at the side of the road though.
That sums up being a ■■■■■■■■ to me. Who knows, the idiot pulling the failed wheelie might hold an HGV licencse, might have stupid opinions or even be a member of this forum. Let’s all guess at everything and the winner can have a cabbage!
What kind of cabbage?
I think the point that is being missed by that those who are saying that the outcome wouldn’t have been any different if the motorcyclist was doing the speed limit, is that if he was doing the speed limit he would have had more time and opportunity to avoid the collision altogether. The question of whether he would have died in the same crash at 60mph is irrelevant because it more than likely would have been a near miss rather than a fatal.
I have in the past driven at (some would say) ludicrous speeds but when doing so you have to be ultra vigilant and aware and drive like everyone is out to kill you. I always drive as if all the other motorists are either idiots, lunatics or both. 
cupidstunt:
I always drive as if all the other motorists are either idiots, lunatics or both.
+1
truckman020:
very shocking and very sad too
+1
Ched:
Left hand down!:
It’s easy to sit behind one’s computer looking at the speed posted in the article getting all frothy with “own fault, no sympathy, going too fast” finger wagging, but it should not matter whether one is doing 10mph or 110mph, it does not in any way excuse another vehicle from turning right across your path when they have to stop/give way to oncoming traffic. The argument posted that if he’d been doing the speed limit or less it wouldn’t have happened is weak to non-existent simply by the fact that the car driver admitted to not even being able to see the car following him so he’d have still turned across him regardless. Even at 50mph a direct impact like that is going to have very little likelihood of being survivable.The biker of course should have anticipated the possibility of the car turning and adjusted his speed such that he’d have given himself time to react - which he did not - so some of the blame rests with himself, but an 18 month driving ban and 12 month CSO is frankly disgusting “justice” for the car driver. Imho he should’ve got absolute minimum of 1 year inside and banned from driving for life.
But yet again there is a huge inconsistency with sentencing for such cases. The bin truck driver that did a U-turn on the A419 back in 2011 which resulted in a van on the d/c crashing into it killing the driver got 3 years inside for it, yet the van driver was travelling well in excess of the speed limit there as well. At least in that case the trucker admitted to having actually seen the van but misjudged his speed, but in the biker case the car driver said he didn’t even see the biker nor the car following it and he gets away with a CSO!
Ridiculous.
Yes it is easy to post from far away and make judgements without being there. I’m going to do it right now. Lets turn this scenario on its head. Suppose a lorry was over speeding doing 60mph plus down that hill and the car had pulled out because it had assumed the truck was doing the legal 40mph? In this hypothetical case the lorry would probably have bulldozed through the car killing the occupants. Who’s fault would that have been? I realise there will be a few people on here that will always support the trucker and always blame the “lesser trained” car driver, but the simple fact is that when you are on a main road approaching a junction … you SLOW DOWN and anticipate other road users taking risks or not being fully observant.
That’s ■■■■■■■■ mate! If you were on your test going down that road doing 60, your continuing straight on with no change of direction on your part required. A car is waiting to pull out of a side road, if you were to get on the breaks and knock it down to 40mph you’d fail your test!
Why on earth would you slow down for a cross road that’s as open and with good visibility like the one in the video if there is no obstruction in the road?
He had right of way, he had no need to stop, he was on a straight price of road, if he had been doing the speed limit and slowed down further he would have been inviting other road users to pull out on him as they wouldn’t have a clue what he was doing.
“Is he letting me out?”
“Is he turning left?”
“Has he broken down?”
“Is he letting me turn into this side road?”
Why on earth would you want to put these sort of thoughts into another drivers head when your passing a junction you don’t intend to take?
If this is how you were taught to drive, I’d say the training is VERY different now.
NewLad:
Ched:
Left hand down!:
It’s easy to sit behind one’s computer looking at the speed posted in the article getting all frothy with “own fault, no sympathy, going too fast” finger wagging, but it should not matter whether one is doing 10mph or 110mph, it does not in any way excuse another vehicle from turning right across your path when they have to stop/give way to oncoming traffic. The argument posted that if he’d been doing the speed limit or less it wouldn’t have happened is weak to non-existent simply by the fact that the car driver admitted to not even being able to see the car following him so he’d have still turned across him regardless. Even at 50mph a direct impact like that is going to have very little likelihood of being survivable.The biker of course should have anticipated the possibility of the car turning and adjusted his speed such that he’d have given himself time to react - which he did not - so some of the blame rests with himself, but an 18 month driving ban and 12 month CSO is frankly disgusting “justice” for the car driver. Imho he should’ve got absolute minimum of 1 year inside and banned from driving for life.
But yet again there is a huge inconsistency with sentencing for such cases. The bin truck driver that did a U-turn on the A419 back in 2011 which resulted in a van on the d/c crashing into it killing the driver got 3 years inside for it, yet the van driver was travelling well in excess of the speed limit there as well. At least in that case the trucker admitted to having actually seen the van but misjudged his speed, but in the biker case the car driver said he didn’t even see the biker nor the car following it and he gets away with a CSO!
Yes it is easy to post from far away and make judgements without being there. I’m going to do it right now. Lets turn this scenario on its head. Suppose a lorry was over speeding doing 60mph plus down that hill and the car had pulled out because it had assumed the truck was doing the legal 40mph? In this hypothetical case the lorry would probably have bulldozed through the car killing the occupants. Who’s fault would that have been? I realise there will be a few people on here that will always support the trucker and always blame the “lesser trained” car driver, but the simple fact is that when you are on a main road approaching a junction … you SLOW DOWN and anticipate other road users taking risks or not being fully observant.
That’s ■■■■■■■■ mate! If you were on your test going down that road doing 60, your continuing straight on with no change of direction on your part required. A car is waiting to pull out of a side road, if you were to get on the breaks and knock it down to 40mph you’d fail your test!
Hmmm. Firstly, this guy was doing 97mph not 60mph. And if that car DID pull out and you had continued to ride/drive at 60mph and you showed no sign of having recognised there was a potential hazard, made no attempt to adjust your speed or take avoiding action but just ploughed into it, do you think you’d still pass then?
No one is suggesting you stop and get out. Just be AWARE of the potential for things to go wrong, and adjust your speed/road position accordingly.
Why on earth would you slow down for a cross road that’s as open and with good visibility like the one in the video if there is no obstruction in the road?
There was an obstruction, or the accident wouldn’t have happened!! Because of what happened here. Drivers do silly things. As this video clearly shows. No one is suggesting you stop. But equally, you do not do 97mph toward them either. This guy did what you are suggesting, i.e. just kept going and made no concession to the fact it was a potential hazard. Didn’t do him a lot of good did it?
He had right of way, he had no need to stop, he was on a straight price of road, if he had been doing the speed limit and slowed down further he would have been inviting other road users to pull out on him as they wouldn’t have a clue what he was doing.
“Is he letting me out?”
“Is he turning left?”
“Has he broken down?”
“Is he letting me turn into this side road?”He had the right of way. No one is disputing that. But, as I and others have said, having the right of way is not much comfort when you end up in a wooden box.
Why on earth would you want to put these sort of thoughts into another drivers head when your passing a junction you don’t intend to take?
You are making the mistake of assuming that the rider had been seen. Your theory falls apart, if the other road user has not seen you!. In this instance, the other driver in this case said he hadn’t seen either the biker or the car behind the biker. So how would the biker slowing down and being prepared to take avoiding action have caused the car driver to assume the above? The guy hadn’t SEEN him, so wouldn’t have thought any of the above - he was unaware of the bike’s presence! If the motorcyclist had been riding appropriately, the driver may have seen him, and the rider would have had a much better chance of avoiding the accident.
If this is how you were taught to drive, I’d say the training is VERY different now.
If you were taught to drive assuming everyone always does what they should, and that no matter what the road conditions, you always ride at the speed limit (limit not target), then you received very different training from any I’ve come across.
The hazard perception test is intended to make new drivers/riders look far enough ahead and assess/react to possible hazards. In my view the car positioning itself in the middle of the road ahead of the rider is a classic “hazard” and should have been recognized as such. If the rider had been sufficiently observant (especially important if you’re doing 100mph) then he would have seen the car, recognized it as a potential hazard and done something about it, ie backed off a bit and anticipated that other drivers often do stupid and unexpected things.
As a driver you should always be driving with “what might he do” going through your mind, especially important if you are not protected by a metal cage and air bags.
Just because he had right of way doesn’t really help him now.
EDIT; What he said!^^^
NewLad:
Why on earth would you slow down for a cross road that’s as open and with good visibility like the one in the video if there is no obstruction in the road?He had right of way, he had no need to stop, he was on a straight price of road, if he had been doing the speed limit and slowed down further he would have been inviting other road users to pull out on him as they wouldn’t have a clue what he was doing.
And this is why motorcyclists will continue to die on the roads.
So much of driving nowadays is not to do with your capabilities but your attitude.
NewLad:
Ched:
Left hand down!:
It’s easy to sit behind one’s computer looking at the speed posted in the article getting all frothy with “own fault, no sympathy, going too fast” finger wagging, but it should not matter whether one is doing 10mph or 110mph, it does not in any way excuse another vehicle from turning right across your path when they have to stop/give way to oncoming traffic. The argument posted that if he’d been doing the speed limit or less it wouldn’t have happened is weak to non-existent simply by the fact that the car driver admitted to not even being able to see the car following him so he’d have still turned across him regardless. Even at 50mph a direct impact like that is going to have very little likelihood of being survivable.The biker of course should have anticipated the possibility of the car turning and adjusted his speed such that he’d have given himself time to react - which he did not - so some of the blame rests with himself, but an 18 month driving ban and 12 month CSO is frankly disgusting “justice” for the car driver. Imho he should’ve got absolute minimum of 1 year inside and banned from driving for life.
But yet again there is a huge inconsistency with sentencing for such cases. The bin truck driver that did a U-turn on the A419 back in 2011 which resulted in a van on the d/c crashing into it killing the driver got 3 years inside for it, yet the van driver was travelling well in excess of the speed limit there as well. At least in that case the trucker admitted to having actually seen the van but misjudged his speed, but in the biker case the car driver said he didn’t even see the biker nor the car following it and he gets away with a CSO!
Yes it is easy to post from far away and make judgements without being there. I’m going to do it right now. Lets turn this scenario on its head. Suppose a lorry was over speeding doing 60mph plus down that hill and the car had pulled out because it had assumed the truck was doing the legal 40mph? In this hypothetical case the lorry would probably have bulldozed through the car killing the occupants. Who’s fault would that have been? I realise there will be a few people on here that will always support the trucker and always blame the “lesser trained” car driver, but the simple fact is that when you are on a main road approaching a junction … you SLOW DOWN and anticipate other road users taking risks or not being fully observant.
That’s ■■■■■■■■ mate! If you were on your test going down that road doing 60, your continuing straight on with no change of direction on your part required. A car is waiting to pull out of a side road, if you were to get on the breaks and knock it down to 40mph you’d fail your test!
Why on earth would you slow down for a cross road that’s as open and with good visibility like the one in the video if there is no obstruction in the road?
He had right of way, he had no need to stop, he was on a straight price of road, if he had been doing the speed limit and slowed down further he would have been inviting other road users to pull out on him as they wouldn’t have a clue what he was doing.
“Is he letting me out?”
“Is he turning left?”
“Has he broken down?”
“Is he letting me turn into this side road?”Why on earth would you want to put these sort of thoughts into another drivers head when your passing a junction you don’t intend to take?
If this is how you were taught to drive, I’d say the training is VERY different now.
He should of slowed down coming upto that junction because of the speed he was going, if he was doing the speed limit then there would be no need to slow down until he got closer to the junction and could see that someone was going to do something stupid like the car driver in the video, if I’m speeding in my car and coming upto a junction like that I wouldn’t carry on going however fast, I’d slow down just to make sure then carry on, I know bikes are quicker to stop etc but it’s madness what he done in this video, but at the end of the day it’s a life lost which could of been avoided r.i.p
Truckulent:
NewLad:
Ched:
Left hand down!:
It’s easy to sit behind one’s computer looking at the speed posted in the article getting all frothy with “own fault, no sympathy, going too fast” finger wagging, but it should not matter whether one is doing 10mph or 110mph, it does not in any way excuse another vehicle from turning right across your path when they have to stop/give way to oncoming traffic. The argument posted that if he’d been doing the speed limit or less it wouldn’t have happened is weak to non-existent simply by the fact that the car driver admitted to not even being able to see the car following him so he’d have still turned across him regardless. Even at 50mph a direct impact like that is going to have very little likelihood of being survivable.The biker of course should have anticipated the possibility of the car turning and adjusted his speed such that he’d have given himself time to react - which he did not - so some of the blame rests with himself, but an 18 month driving ban and 12 month CSO is frankly disgusting “justice” for the car driver. Imho he should’ve got absolute minimum of 1 year inside and banned from driving for life.
But yet again there is a huge inconsistency with sentencing for such cases. The bin truck driver that did a U-turn on the A419 back in 2011 which resulted in a van on the d/c crashing into it killing the driver got 3 years inside for it, yet the van driver was travelling well in excess of the speed limit there as well. At least in that case the trucker admitted to having actually seen the van but misjudged his speed, but in the biker case the car driver said he didn’t even see the biker nor the car following it and he gets away with a CSO!
Yes it is easy to post from far away and make judgements without being there. I’m going to do it right now. Lets turn this scenario on its head. Suppose a lorry was over speeding doing 60mph plus down that hill and the car had pulled out because it had assumed the truck was doing the legal 40mph? In this hypothetical case the lorry would probably have bulldozed through the car killing the occupants. Who’s fault would that have been? I realise there will be a few people on here that will always support the trucker and always blame the “lesser trained” car driver, but the simple fact is that when you are on a main road approaching a junction … you SLOW DOWN and anticipate other road users taking risks or not being fully observant.
That’s ■■■■■■■■ mate! If you were on your test going down that road doing 60, your continuing straight on with no change of direction on your part required. A car is waiting to pull out of a side road, if you were to get on the breaks and knock it down to 40mph you’d fail your test!
Hmmm. Firstly, this guy was doing 97mph not 60mph. And if that car DID pull out and you had continued to ride/drive at 60mph and you showed no sign of having recognised there was a potential hazard, made no attempt to adjust your speed or take avoiding action but just ploughed into it, do you think you’d still pass then?
You were implying that you (everyone) should SLOW DOWN for all upcoming junctions, which is what I was referring to as ■■■■■■■■, there was no mention about he should have (which I agree as I’ve said he was going too fast in my very first post on this). I’m telling you now that is NOT how you are trained to drive nowadays. Yes by all means be prepared to stop but a change in speed for no reason.Why on earth would you slow down for a cross road that’s as open and with good visibility like the one in the video if there is no obstruction in the road?
There was an obstruction, or the accident wouldn’t have happened!! Because of what happened here. Drivers do silly things. As this video clearly shows. No one is suggesting you stop. But equally, you do not do 97mph toward them either. This guy did what you are suggesting, i.e. just kept going and made no concession to the fact it was a potential hazard. Didn’t do him a lot of good did it?
The obstruction only appeared as he was onto of the junction, not 100m before,not even 50, the car didn’t start moving across the road until it was too late. Yes he was going too fast but if the same situation happened at 60/50 we’d still be talking about this accident in the same wayHe had right of way, he had no need to stop, he was on a straight price of road, if he had been doing the speed limit and slowed down further he would have been inviting other road users to pull out on him as they wouldn’t have a clue what he was doing.
“Is he letting me out?”
“Is he turning left?”
“Has he broken down?”
“Is he letting me turn into this side road?”He had the right of way. No one is disputing that. But, as I and others have said, having the right of way is not much comfort when you end up in a wooden box.
Why on earth would you want to put these sort of thoughts into another drivers head when your passing a junction you don’t intend to take?
You are making the mistake of assuming that the rider had been seen. Your theory falls apart, if the other road user has not seen you!. In this instance, the other driver in this case said he hadn’t seen either the biker or the car behind the biker. So how would the biker slowing down and being prepared to take avoiding action have caused the car driver to assume the above? The guy hadn’t SEEN him, so wouldn’t have thought any of the above - he was unaware of the bike’s presence! If the motorcyclist had been riding appropriately, the driver may have seen him, and the rider would have had a much better chance of avoiding the accident.
If people don’t look and see you then no matter what you do your ■■■■■■
If this is how you were taught to drive, I’d say the training is VERY different now.
If you were taught to drive assuming everyone always does what they should, and that no matter what the road conditions, you always ride at the speed limit (limit not target), then you received very different training from any I’ve come across.
No, your correct, your not taught to drive expecting everyone to do as their supposed to, your told to treat everyone as idiots, however pulling out on someone on a national speed limit road is beyond idiocy! If you drove around expecting everyone to pull out on you on a bike you’d never get off the drive.
Although its a sad loss of life, dieing in an incident like this does not give the biker the moral high ground.
He contributed massively to his own demise by excessive speed and no doubt thought the car would stop the turning manouvre so he could still fly through with a little coffee beans gesture performance that he had done many times before in this situation.
Just lucky that no occupants of the car where injured but they will have to live with the image of this for the rest of their lives.
My heart goes out to all involved.
‘Think Bike’, ‘Bikers Think’…
When something / somebody is coming straight at you as in head on, it’s really difficult to judge what sort of speed they’re doing. Maybe the car driver thought he’d cover his arse by saying he didn’t see the bike… I don’t know. What I do know is that I’d never have been doing that sort of speed on that sort of road, no matter how straight it was. If it was a long road with NO junctions of any sort, you know, like a race track, then I might have a go, but not on a public road. One of us professionals (in my case, ex professional) might have done things differently, but this is part of the reason for speed limits. It’s not just a case of you seeing them, it’s also giving them a chance to see you.
NewLad:
Truckulent:
NewLad:
Ched:
Left hand down!:
It’s easy to sit behind one’s computer looking at the speed posted in the article getting all frothy with “own fault, no sympathy, going too fast” finger wagging, but it should not matter whether one is doing 10mph or 110mph, it does not in any way excuse another vehicle from turning right across your path when they have to stop/give way to oncoming traffic. The argument posted that if he’d been doing the speed limit or less it wouldn’t have happened is weak to non-existent simply by the fact that the car driver admitted to not even being able to see the car following him so he’d have still turned across him regardless. Even at 50mph a direct impact like that is going to have very little likelihood of being survivable.The biker of course should have anticipated the possibility of the car turning and adjusted his speed such that he’d have given himself time to react - which he did not - so some of the blame rests with himself, but an 18 month driving ban and 12 month CSO is frankly disgusting “justice” for the car driver. Imho he should’ve got absolute minimum of 1 year inside and banned from driving for life.
But yet again there is a huge inconsistency with sentencing for such cases. The bin truck driver that did a U-turn on the A419 back in 2011 which resulted in a van on the d/c crashing into it killing the driver got 3 years inside for it, yet the van driver was travelling well in excess of the speed limit there as well. At least in that case the trucker admitted to having actually seen the van but misjudged his speed, but in the biker case the car driver said he didn’t even see the biker nor the car following it and he gets away with a CSO!
Yes it is easy to post from far away and make judgements without being there. I’m going to do it right now. Lets turn this scenario on its head. Suppose a lorry was over speeding doing 60mph plus down that hill and the car had pulled out because it had assumed the truck was doing the legal 40mph? In this hypothetical case the lorry would probably have bulldozed through the car killing the occupants. Who’s fault would that have been? I realise there will be a few people on here that will always support the trucker and always blame the “lesser trained” car driver, but the simple fact is that when you are on a main road approaching a junction … you SLOW DOWN and anticipate other road users taking risks or not being fully observant.
That’s ■■■■■■■■ mate! If you were on your test going down that road doing 60, your continuing straight on with no change of direction on your part required. A car is waiting to pull out of a side road, if you were to get on the breaks and knock it down to 40mph you’d fail your test!
Hmmm. Firstly, this guy was doing 97mph not 60mph. And if that car DID pull out and you had continued to ride/drive at 60mph and you showed no sign of having recognised there was a potential hazard, made no attempt to adjust your speed or take avoiding action but just ploughed into it, do you think you’d still pass then?
You were implying that you (everyone) should SLOW DOWN for all upcoming junctions, which is what I was referring to as ■■■■■■■■, there was no mention about he should have (which I agree as I’ve said he was going too fast in my very first post on this). I’m telling you now that is NOT how you are trained to drive nowadays. Yes by all means be prepared to stop but a change in speed for no reason.I was implying that you have to ANTICIPATE that someone won’t have seen you! If you can see a hazard, you slow down! If that car had been a little kid stood at the side of the road instead, would you have just kept going on the basis that they were at the side of the road so couldn’t possibly be a hazard at any point?
Why on earth would you slow down for a cross road that’s as open and with good visibility like the one in the video if there is no obstruction in the road?
There was an obstruction, or the accident wouldn’t have happened!! Because of what happened here. Drivers do silly things. As this video clearly shows. No one is suggesting you stop. But equally, you do not do 97mph toward them either. This guy did what you are suggesting, i.e. just kept going and made no concession to the fact it was a potential hazard. Didn’t do him a lot of good did it?
The obstruction only appeared as he was onto of the junction, not 100m before,not even 50, the car didn’t start moving across the road until it was too late. Yes he was going too fast but if the same situation happened at 60/50 we’d still be talking about this accident in the same wayNo. If he’d anticipated the possibility of the car pulling across the junction, he’d have been doing a hell of a lot less than 60… and may well have been able to avoid crashing altogether. You can see the car is setting up to turn right a hell of a long way from the junction. He just assumed he’d be seen and the car wouldn’t pull in front of him. If he’d assumed the opposite, he’d still be here now. It was too late when the car pulled across the road. But with anticipation of that particular hazard, the crash could have been avoided.
He had right of way, he had no need to stop, he was on a straight price of road, if he had been doing the speed limit and slowed down further he would have been inviting other road users to pull out on him as they wouldn’t have a clue what he was doing.
“Is he letting me out?”
“Is he turning left?”
“Has he broken down?”
“Is he letting me turn into this side road?”He had the right of way. No one is disputing that. But, as I and others have said, having the right of way is not much comfort when you end up in a wooden box.
Why on earth would you want to put these sort of thoughts into another drivers head when your passing a junction you don’t intend to take?
You are making the mistake of assuming that the rider had been seen. Your theory falls apart, if the other road user has not seen you!. In this instance, the other driver in this case said he hadn’t seen either the biker or the car behind the biker. So how would the biker slowing down and being prepared to take avoiding action have caused the car driver to assume the above? The guy hadn’t SEEN him, so wouldn’t have thought any of the above - he was unaware of the bike’s presence! If the motorcyclist had been riding appropriately, the driver may have seen him, and the rider would have had a much better chance of avoiding the accident.
If people don’t look and see you then no matter what you do your [zb]
Again, not necessarily. Many bikers take avoiding action to prevent accidents when car drivers haven’t seen you. It’s common enough. Which is why you have to assume they HAVEN’'T seen you and be prepared to take avoiding action yourself.
If this is how you were taught to drive, I’d say the training is VERY different now.
If you were taught to drive assuming everyone always does what they should, and that no matter what the road conditions, you always ride at the speed limit (limit not target), then you received very different training from any I’ve come across.
No, your correct, your not taught to drive expecting everyone to do as their supposed to, your told to treat everyone as idiots, however pulling out on someone on a national speed limit road is beyond idiocy! If you drove around expecting everyone to pull out on you on a bike you’d never get off the drive.
It is beyond idiocy, I am in complete agreement with you there. But the guy, for whatever reason did not see the bike. It is highly unlikely a driver would do this on purpose. As a biker, you certainly do have to trust others to some extent, some of the time. But equally, you have a responsibility for your own safety, you cannot just rely on others’ abilities and you have to try and stack the odds in your favour to the greatest extent you can. The driver here, may have only just passed his test and panicked for example. You simply don’t know as you approach the junction, what state of mind the driver is in .Which is why you have to be cautious and suspicious.
All bikers are taught to be extremely vigilant at junctions. Right of way violation is one of the biggest factors in motorcycle accidents because of the motorcyclists’’ poor sensory conspicuity (hard to tell them from their background).
2011 stats show that 48% of crashes involving a motorcycle and a car are caused by the car driver failing to look properly, which is what happened here. But bikers know this (or should). Which is why 97mph in these circumstances was lunacy.
Dipper Dave is correct. Some bikers really do need to think more! Right of way does not equal safe to proceed.
Many years a biker, a complete nutter, ex - dispatch rider, 1000cc motorbike and a 650 off roader.
A little about me.
Personally, approaching junctions, but especially staggered junctions, I slow down, mainly because I don’t want to die, staggered junctions are particularly bad where cars are coming from 1 side and going to the other, they may pull out and turn left, only then to turn right, treating it as 2 manoeuvres, and if they’ve pulled out at a bad time and turned left, you go to pass them on the right, they take you round with them 
In this video, the motorbike rider IS going too fast, nobody can deny that, especially for the junction, so we’ll give him maybe 10% blame.
BUT, I know this is bad mathematics, the car driver is 100% to blame.
There is NO reason why he couldn’t see that bike, clear straight road, no road furniture, good visibility etc.
There is NO WAY he could’ve made that turn, the bike was actually AT the junction when the car crossed the white line.
As someone else pointed out, these recent pass drivers don’t know how to use a bloody indicator, coming up that road on a motorbike, it could’ve been a slight misjudgement to know whether the car was in the right turn lane or the straight on lane, an indicator - a simple bloody click on a stalk for gods sake - would’ve removed any doubt and may have changed the riders positioning or speed.
This is a well known biker road, it is well known for bikes (and cars and HGV’s) to be speeding down it, and the driver should have had his eyes bloody open!
The sentence (justice?? yeah right) was FAR too lenient, and that driver should NEVER be behind the wheel of a car again, it was a bad judgement, a bad manoeuvre and cost someone their life.
How often to people do things to us whilst driving HGV’s where it could easily cost them their life, but we adjust our positioning, speed, re-create our safe stopping distance etc. Yes, we all get caught out by the particularly crazy / stupid / suicidal move some do, but in this situation it should have been expected that vehicles coming up that road might well be exceeding the limit and difficult to spot.
His bike is quite a large bike, and is a bright colour (not the bike in the picture, that’s from when he was younger)
Anyone here who rides a large motorbike will tell you how ‘slow’ 100mph can feel, depending on the design of the bike and engine and what gear you’re in, 100mph can feel like 40 or 50, it’s a very relaxed speed on certain bikes.
If you’ve done fast speeds in your car on a motorway, it doesn’t feel that fast, but if you’re sat in your truck and a car goes by at 100mph, you think ‘bloody nutter’, so watching it on the video and actually being the person riding are different.
I used to work with a guy who had a serious motorcycle accident but luckily he survived. ok he was in hospital for months !!
he came around a bend and ended up sliding into the side of an artic who was turning right across his path…
at this particular junction if the vehicles are doing the 60mph speed limit then you have plenty of time to turn right even if someone appears around the corner after you have commited to turn…
as i said he survived and in doing so he took full responsibility of the accident as he said he was " bombing it !! " and it all happened because he was going too fast and would never of happened if he was doing the speed limit !!
97mph !!! Says it all about riders really. Why some of you are blaming the car driver and defending the biker is beyond me.
Had he been doing the speed limit, which the car driver could of assumed, the two of them would not of come together at the junction.
Had it been the other way around and a car was doing 97mph and hit a biker taking a right turn who would half of you idiots blame them ■■?
Boo9729:
97mph !!! Says it all about riders really.
darwins theory 
Boo9729:
97mph !!! Says it all about riders really. Why some of you are blaming the car driver and defending the biker is beyond me.Had he been doing the speed limit, which the car driver could of assumed, the two of them would not of come together at the junction.
Had it been the other way around and a car was doing 97mph and hit a biker taking a right turn who would half of you idiots blame them ■■?
You don’t make decisions on the road based upon assumptions.
The biker was going to quick, the car driver should have seen the biker.