Usually I've some sympathy for the driver in a car/filtering collision. It's their fault, but I can see how the lapse of attantion occurs when in otherwise stationary traffic. You only see the risk you're looking for- a driver could easily look behind to check there's space to change lanes and miss a bike that's practically in their blind spot, and between cars behind them. it happens.
But this one's mental. It's one thing changing lanes, which is a part of everyday, appropriate driving. It's totally another thing to be casually opning your doors on the motorway. Just nuts.
The conclusion I draw in the speed vs safety discussion is that every rider should reach thir own conclusion of where the acceptable risks lie- for the simple reason that there's absolutely no such thing as total safety. You can't legislate for stupidity or chance. Yes, we can do a huge amount to protect ourselves but certainty's an impossible dream.
So, given that the goal is unobtainable, where do you stop striving for it? You could hit a patch of black ice at 1mph, fall, have the bike land on you and break your leg, then get a blood clot and die. I was
this close to being permanently crippled after a fall while
walking. So do you wrap yourself in cotton wool and stay in the cupboard?
Equally, just because the goal's unobtainable, that doesn't mean there's no point in getting some of the way there. Some people genuinely do think "Riding's risky, nothing i can do about it, so I might as well not bother." (they all ride supermotos and race reps- FACT!)
i reckon everyone with a brain is somewhere inbetween, and for all of those people with a brain, the acceptable risk is in a different place.
Oh aye, and if he'd been doing 50, he'd have been past the hazard before it ever happened
http://video.greatestjournal.com/fil...aves Lives.wmv