link to bike accident near Plymouth on A38

Mr Hortop said he slowed down on the inside lane to about 20mph when the collision occured.

what he said

“Mr Hortop is lucky to be alive after this incident. He is an experienced motorcyclist who did everything right –

what the copper said.

Sorry but if a biker did anything wrong, he would be in prison or license gone. basically, any opportunity to shaft a biker, they will. They get HUGE points bonus on their "productivity" reports for nicking a biker. (these reports are widely denied by officials, however, speak to any honest copper/traffic copper, they will tell you it exists in most of the country. To "reflect public opinion" in most areas a copper will get more points for getting a conviction against a murderer than a rapist.....yes a rapist) and no my regard for the police is not very high! :P

so based on those pieces of information. i came to the conclusion he was in the lane already as this is what the newspaper reports, and the copper.

what happened previously a couple of miles back isnt relevent, However, IF he did change lanes pulling infront of the car then it should be his fault, as under the highway code you should not cut into peoples braking distance, which *IF* he did change lanes, he clearly did.

my opinion from watching is that he was in the far right side of the lane, slowed hard and turned to pull in (to tell the copper about the incident further back he had witnessed) and was then shafted. I personally do not believe he was in the outside lane just prior to this crash due to the reasons above.

Paul

Originally Posted by paulthewitt

my opinion from watching is that he was in the far right side of the lane, slowed hard and turned to pull in (to tell the copper about the incident further back he had witnessed) and was then shafted. I personally do not believe he was in the outside lane just prior to this crash due to the reasons above.

Paul

That's what I think. I believe he was probably in the far right of his lane from when he enters the screen (I've watched it in frame by frame advance) because there were cars in the hard shoulder and any that the police car (or indeed, any car behind that) was obscuring could have pulled out (as the white car did, earlier in the clip). Even if was about to pull in to the hard shoulder, I'd adopt this position until I saw a space to pull into. It seems this is what he was doing and it wouldn't normally be particularly dangerous as watching the traffic in the outside lane, there's nothing passing immediately after the crash and certainly not at high speed.

Also, I'd completely ignore what the driver said about how he was riding further down the road. Most of us have, at one point or another, had a car driver express their displeasure at the way we are riding, even when riding quite safely and legally. For all we know he was filtering in low speed traffic that she saw and interpreted as undertaking (which, in any event is not explicitly illegal, in spite of what she may think).

The only thing I can see he could of done was use slightly better rear observation before throwing on the brakes, especially considering the sort of road he was on and that he was coming to a stop (or intending to). Looks to me like he was in the lane, braked and then got rear ended. Without seeing up the road it's hard to say how long since he pulled in front of the car driver. Even if he had cut in front of her braking distance, if that was several seconds ago, she would have had time to drop back to a safe braking distance. If someone cuts in in front of you and you maintain that distance for the next x number of miles, it's certainly your fault when you rear end them. If of course he did it a split second before coming on the screen, then yes, it's his fault. Without more footage/indepent witness statement, it's impossible to say conclusively.

All IMHO of course.

Have the 'comments' been removed from the original artical?
I was sure they were there this morning!

RR

Originally Posted by Reckless Rat

Have the 'comments' been removed from the original artical?
I was sure they were there this morning!

RR

Yep they sure have. It was getting funny to see some of the biker's reactions to the initial few (car drivers) posts too I think the newspaper disabled comments on the article to save an all out war

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

Generally speaking yes, the vehicle behind is usually held at fault for following too closely. The fact is this, video does not show the lead up to the incident clearly enough. If the bike had just overtaken the car at higher speed and then crossed the path of the car whilst breaking sharply then I would say the biker would be at fault for not leaving the car driver reaonable time to anticipate the bikes manoeuvre and adjust their speed and distance accordingly. I tend to agree with the principle used in USA in cases such as these, the vehicle that made the manoeuvre is at fault. If no vehicle changed lanes or direction then the following vehicle is held at fault.

Kind regards
Tim

Hmmm...I'm not saying who right or wrong as we don't know what happened before. Thought I'd apply some crude science and a bit of controversy.

No one picked up on this part - why did the driver swerve towards the bike??? I would instinctively swerve away from something if it was veering towards me - not towards it.

One thing that may go against the people carrier driver is that her hazards are on prior to the impact. I dont remember being told to look for my hazards prior to any braking manouvre.

I ran the vid thru final cut (do this stuff for a living) and placed reference points on the bike, red clio, people carrier and the white polo in the outside lane.

As she enters frame her brake lights are not on but her hazards are. She also didn't slow down as did the red clio in front so her braking distance was reducing. She should have been slowing and not fiddling around putting hazards on.

When you pitch her speed against that of the white car on the outside lane, she is actually going slightly faster.

Police might weigh that against her.

The police also had the benefit or a clearer view to the sides and may have been looking back with a view to pulling out so they might have seen the biker.

From the shadow as the biker enters the frame he is def in his own lane.

What if - the car driver got fixated by the red clio, looked to put her hazards on and took her eye off the bike slowing down? Driver at fault surely?

All this assumes that the biker was rightfully in his own lane though but you cant tell from that.

ABOVE ALL - the guy is ok.

[northwind]

Originally Posted by xlewdx

Isn't it then irrelevant how the motorcyclist was manouvering

Of course not, the bike changed lane into the car's gap. The car had actually left almost exactly 2 seconds between it and the car in front, exactly as he should- the biker then pulled into that gap, while moving far slower than the car behind. I can't see any way it was anything other than the biker's fault. Keeping that 2 second gap is pretty difficult when there's idiots around, to tailgaters and lanechangers a 2 second gap looks like an invitation to pull into it.

Stuartyboy, the biker's clearly pulling across the lane from the outside. The most likely reason for this- is that he's changing lanes. And he actually said as much... And swerving right was actually the right thing for the car to do, as the bike was moving rapidly right to left- swerving left would have had no chance of avoiding the bike, swerving right could have if he'd had a moment longer or if the speed differential had been less. Not to mention that there's a car on the left. I'm guessing the car's hazards were already on because he's seen the police car, and was trying to warn cars behind, not connected to the bike at all.