link to bike accident near Plymouth on A38 - Page 3 - SV650.org

06-09-06, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xlewdx

Excuse my ignorance here but with all the discussion taking place about who's at fault something appears really bloody obvious to me.

The car hit him from behind!

When moving in traffic it is your responsibilty to allow enough time and space between yourself and the vehicle in front of you to stop safely (the old 2 sec. thingy).

Isn't it then irrelevant how the motorcyclist was manouvering

Rich

I know legally fault always down to the person behind - but from a defensive riding point of view - if you want to stay safe dont rely on and expect other people to be adhering to the rules - I wouldnt stop suddenly (unless an emergency stop)for that reason

Edit - I dont know - its hard to see what or where the biker was going or coming having looked again at those still clips - at least he wasnt badly hurt thats the main thing

06-09-06, 10:23 PM

In TSM's first frame you can see that the biker is moving into the 1st lane enroute to the hard shoulder. The rider stated that that is what he was doing. In the same frame you can already see the shadow of the vehicle that hit him.

Watch the video again. The rider is moving from the 2nd lane into the first to get to the hard shoulder. He cuts directly in front of the car. Why would a driver that has just been overtaken by a biker then expect the biker to pull directly in his path on the brakes?

As for the statement that he got hit from behind so it's the drivers and not the riders fault. I disagree because of what the rider did. It was lack of observations by the rider. The car driver had no chance of avoiding that.

Also the statement about responsibilty to keep the two second rule. All well and good until someone jumps in front of you causing you to brake. What if the driver jumps in front and then has to slam his brakes on for whatever reason, and you go up his ass? Automatically your fault then is it? Don't think so. It's not always cut and dry in regards to rear ending someone. This video proves that.

06-09-06, 10:34 PM

I've played the video frame by frame and the bike is in the left hand lane from the moment when it first appears. At no time is the bike in the right hand lane. Of course, we don't know which lane it was in prior to that. I'd thought at first that BigApe was right and the rider was at fault, but now I'm not convinced. I think that the bike braked hard in order to pull in to the layby and the driver behind couldn't or didn't react quickly enough.

06-09-06, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigApe

In TSM's first frame you can see that the biker is moving into the 1st lane enroute to the hard shoulder. The rider stated that that is what he was doing. In the same frame you can already see the shadow of the vehicle that hit him.

Watch the video again. The rider is moving from the 2nd lane into the first to get to the hard shoulder. He cuts directly in front of the car. Why would a driver that has just been overtaken by a biker then expect the biker to pull directly in his path on the brakes?

That was my first reaction to what I saw but wasnt really sure

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigApe

As for the statement that he got hit from behind so it's the drivers and not the riders fault. I disagree because of what the rider did. It was lack of observations by the rider. The car driver had no chance of avoiding that.

Also the statement about responsibilty to keep the two second rule. All well and good until someone jumps in front of you causing you to brake. What if the driver jumps in front and then has to slam his brakes on for whatever reason, and you go up his ass? Automatically your fault then is it? Don't think so. It's not always cut and dry in regards to rear ending someone. This video proves that.

That was more or less what I was getting at but you put it better than me

06-09-06, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wyrdness

I've played the video frame by frame and the bike is in the left hand lane from the moment when it first appears. At no time is the bike in the right hand lane. Of course, we don't know which lane it was in prior to that. I'd thought at first that BigApe was right and the rider was at fault, but now I'm not convinced. I think that the bike braked hard in order to pull in to the layby and the driver behind couldn't or didn't react quickly enough.

Oh nooo - my head is spinning now !!

06-09-06, 11:14 PM

The guy was a member of Plymouth advanced motorcyclist, he said he was pulling in to tell the police of some paniers that fell on the road but from the vid you realy can't tell much

He was on his way down to me to drop some beers off for lending him a chain tool, (he was a member of our local forum) he said the beers survived but he bike was carnage, he hosted some pics of it when he got it home but i've lost the links

06-09-06, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CheekyLemon

Wow. Took people long enough to get to him.

Glad he's OK though.

'long enough'? It took 18 seconds from the moment of impact for the policewoman to get to him. She had to get out of the car and run up the road. I'd say that's pretty quick by anyone's standards.

Red ones · 07-09-06, 04:54 AM

Look again. The man committed a crime - he was on 2 wheels. A crime in any decent tabloid mind. Clearly obstructing a perfectly nice chap in a car.

nuff said

07-09-06, 08:23 AM

I'd have to agree with the opinion that he was coming from the outside lane to the hard shoulder hard on the brakes.

Justification for this thought? Quite simply the angle of the collision. When the car hits the bike, and the rider is thrown off, the rider is clearly thrown far to the left (and thereby probably saving his life as it meant no cars had a chance of running him over). The bike also goes left, but must then bunce off something as it returns to the right.

I fail to see how the biker could claim the car was at fault, even though that's generally the case when A hit's B from behind.

Just my 2p.

Luckypants · 07-09-06, 08:33 AM

Does not really matter whose fault it was (although I have my own opinion) The thing is, he is basically OK and no one else was hurt. Like he said (and BigApe has been saying for ages!

)wearing proper protective gear saved his life.

The cops / insurance will apportion blame, fairly or un-fairly, in light of all the facts that they have. We only have a short bit of video that does not quiet show the whole story.

07-09-06, 08:33 AM	#30
Luckypants Moderator Mega Poster Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Nr Ruthin Posts: 7,079	Does not really matter whose fault it was (although I have my own opinion) The thing is, he is basically OK and no one else was hurt. Like he said (and BigApe has been saying for ages! )wearing proper protective gear saved his life. The cops / insurance will apportion blame, fairly or un-fairly, in light of all the facts that they have. We only have a short bit of video that does not quiet show the whole story. __________________ "Your Viffer sounds like it is raising hell! Spot on." - Witchery 17/4/08 Snow Plough Appreciation Society - Member #3

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Smallest bike accident ever.	Warthog	Bikes - Talk & Issues	23	28-01-09 10:58 PM
bad bike accident	kitkat	Idle Banter	16	08-05-07 06:03 PM
my bike in an accident	manxsv	Photos	18	15-06-06 12:06 PM
Who's had an accident on their bike?	vtwin	SV Talk, Tuning & Tweaking	13	26-07-03 08:52 PM
link to bike accident near Plymouth on A38	craigk	Idle Banter	12	08-01-70 11:37 AM

06-09-06, 10:23 PM	#22
Stig Guest Posts: n/a	In TSM's first frame you can see that the biker is moving into the 1st lane enroute to the hard shoulder. The rider stated that that is what he was doing. In the same frame you can already see the shadow of the vehicle that hit him. Watch the video again. The rider is moving from the 2nd lane into the first to get to the hard shoulder. He cuts directly in front of the car. Why would a driver that has just been overtaken by a biker then expect the biker to pull directly in his path on the brakes? As for the statement that he got hit from behind so it's the drivers and not the riders fault. I disagree because of what the rider did. It was lack of observations by the rider. The car driver had no chance of avoiding that. Also the statement about responsibilty to keep the two second rule. All well and good until someone jumps in front of you causing you to brake. What if the driver jumps in front and then has to slam his brakes on for whatever reason, and you go up his ass? Automatically your fault then is it? Don't think so. It's not always cut and dry in regards to rear ending someone. This video proves that.

06-09-06, 10:34 PM	#23
wyrdness Guest Posts: n/a	I've played the video frame by frame and the bike is in the left hand lane from the moment when it first appears. At no time is the bike in the right hand lane. Of course, we don't know which lane it was in prior to that. I'd thought at first that BigApe was right and the rider was at fault, but now I'm not convinced. I think that the bike braked hard in order to pull in to the layby and the driver behind couldn't or didn't react quickly enough.

06-09-06, 11:14 PM	#26
svrash Guest Posts: n/a	The guy was a member of Plymouth advanced motorcyclist, he said he was pulling in to tell the police of some paniers that fell on the road but from the vid you realy can't tell much He was on his way down to me to drop some beers off for lending him a chain tool, (he was a member of our local forum) he said the beers survived but he bike was carnage, he hosted some pics of it when he got it home but i've lost the links

07-09-06, 04:54 AM	#28
Red ones Member Mega Poster Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Hertfordshire Posts: 1,422	Look again. The man committed a crime - he was on 2 wheels. A crime in any decent tabloid mind. Clearly obstructing a perfectly nice chap in a car. nuff said

07-09-06, 08:23 AM	#29
Baph Guest Posts: n/a	I'd have to agree with the opinion that he was coming from the outside lane to the hard shoulder hard on the brakes. Justification for this thought? Quite simply the angle of the collision. When the car hits the bike, and the rider is thrown off, the rider is clearly thrown far to the left (and thereby probably saving his life as it meant no cars had a chance of running him over). The bike also goes left, but must then bunce off something as it returns to the right. I fail to see how the biker could claim the car was at fault, even though that's generally the case when A hit's B from behind. Just my 2p.