How not to take a bend

[Bellow]

I'm not concerned about other drivers assessing my speed; leave that, and my being aware of other vehicles, to me. I just want the idiots to know I'm there, and in daylight main beam is much better for that than dipped beam.

Yes, but it does (or can) antagonise and worse, distract. 'Target fixation' if true - is a risk for you here.
As a car driver, I'd prefer to be concentrating on my driving rather than having to deal with being dazzled. As a biker, I've always found dipped beam sufficient.

Makes you think, though, doesn't it? Apart from the fact that my headlight would have been on, if I had been the biker I would probably have been doing the same sort of speed, and would have had the same accident. I don't think consciously about the risk of an idiot coming out of a bend on the wrong side of the road, I just assess that risk as very small and accept it.

Good summary of what we all face every time we venture onto the roads - irrespective of vehicle we are piloting.

 

[219]

I agree. Always curious why bikers don't ride with low beam on at all times. Would be much easier to spot them (not that it would have saved the guy in clip).

When I had my bike ( not yesterday) it was accepted practice to drive on high beam all the time ( much more conspicuous) .

Most , if not all , modern bikes either have DRLs or the headlamp is permanently on .

 

[219]

I'm not concerned about other drivers assessing my speed; leave that, and my being aware of other vehicles, to me. I just want the idiots to know I'm there, and in daylight main beam is much better for that than dipped beam.

It wouldn't have helped either party in this accident, though; absent the reactions of a high-class racer, this accident was pretty much inevitable once the car driver cocked up the bend.

Makes you think, though, doesn't it? Apart from the fact that my headlight would have been on, if I had been the biker I would probably have been doing the same sort of speed, and would have had the same accident. I don't think consciously about the risk of an idiot coming out of a bend on the wrong side of the road, I just assess that risk as very small and accept it.

While we are all hyper critical of this driver , and not wrongly , because he was at fault in this incident, how many of us can put hand on heart and say we have NEVER misjudged a bend on an unfamiliar road ?

I’d have to admit that in my 45 years and well north of a million miles of driving , I’ve overcooked bends on a number of occasions; with experience have learned that late braking is not the solution , but even with power on have on a handful of occasions run slightly wide with screeching of tyres . I’ve never , however , gone completely offside and have never hit anything, thankfully .

One of my reactions to the video , though , was “ There but for the grace of God ... “

 

[Bellow]

While we are all hyper critical of this driver , and not wrongly , because he was at fault in this incident, how many of us can put hand on heart and say we have NEVER misjudged a bend on an unfamiliar road ?

Maybe - in my teens. The guy was 40 something.

I’d have to admit that in my 45 years and well north of a million miles of driving , I’ve overcooked bends on a number of occasions; with experience have learned that late braking is not the solution , but even with power on have on a handful of occasions run slightly wide with screeching of tyres . I’ve never , however , gone completely offside and have never hit anything, thankfully .

Thinking back to when I T-boned a car that turned right right in front of me with mere seconds between sighting and impact - I still instinctivley steered (right) to try and avoid the collision. Our man Pratt had ample opportunity to do the same. He just does not have the level of skill for his ambitions.

One of my reactions to the video , though , was “ There but for the grace of God ... “

Indeed (except for the God bit!)

 

[st13phil]

I've heard, that leathers can keep the internal organs in place well enough until the ambulance arrives....

There was reference to the rider having been wearing an airbag suit. This will have been a top-end suit, offering the maximum protection available.

While no clothing will protect absolutely in an impact such as that, the combination of the leathers, body armour, and the airbag will almost certainly have mitigated further injuries, so I don’t subscribe to the view that the Police shouldn’t have drawn attention to the benefits of wearing proper gear when riding.

As someone who subscribes to the ATGATT (all the gear, all the time) mantra, I wince when I see riders wearing shorts, t-shirts, trainers and no gloves when riding in the summer

 

[st13phil]

I wonder how fast that biker was travelling

What's that got to do with the price of fish?

 

[Deleted member 6183]

What's that got to do with the price of fish?

Isn't it obvious?

 

[Deleted member 126251]

What's that got to do with the price of fish?

I thought that was petty obvious. However.

If he was going slower he'd have had more time to brake, slowed quicker, car driver may have had time to react differently, biker may have had time to take evasive action, less impact....... etc etc

 

[st13phil]

I thought that was petty obvious.

If he was going slower he'd have had more time to brake, slowed quicker, car drive may have had time to react differently, less impact....... etc etc

And if he hadn't been on the road at all, there wouldn't have been a collision

For the biker it was a done deal whatever speed he was doing. Wrong place, wrong time, idiot out of control on the wrong side of the road.

 

[Mr. B]

I have no words except WTF

 

[Deleted member 126251]

And if he hadn't been on the road at all, there wouldn't have been a collision

For the biker it was a done deal whatever speed he was doing. Wrong place, wrong time, idiot out of control on the wrong side of the road.

Defensive Driving!

Any accident does not have a single cause!

 

[Bellow]

I thought that was petty obvious. However.

If he was going slower he'd have had more time to brake, slowed quicker, car driver may have had time to react differently, biker may have had time to take evasive action, less impact....... etc etc

Nah.
Biker could have been doing 300mph and if the Subaru hadn't crossed the line, they still wouldn't have collided.
You are correct though in your 'not one cause' assertion. The car driver was lacking in skill to take the corner AND lacking in any avoidance skills once he'd screwed up the corner. There's your plurality of causes right there.

 

[219]

There was reference to the rider having been wearing an airbag suit. This will have been a top-end suit, offering the maximum protection available.

While no clothing will protect absolutely in an impact such as that, the combination of the leathers, body armour, and the airbag will almost certainly have mitigated further injuries, so I don’t subscribe to the view that the Police shouldn’t have drawn attention to the benefits of wearing proper gear when riding.

As someone who subscribes to the ATGATT (all the gear, all the time) mantra, I wince when I see riders wearing shorts, t-shirts, trainers and no gloves when riding in the summer

While I may have relaxed it a bit on short trips down to the shops in the summer , where I knew I was never going fast , for me minimum was still helmet , leather jacket & gloves , proper boots . For longer trips I had leather trousers as well . I certainly never would go out in jeans T-shirts and trainers

 

[st13phil]

Defensive Driving!

Yeah, right

There's a better version of the video published on the South Yorkshire Police web site here.

The biker would have had first visibility of the car rounding the bend at around the 18-second mark - still on it's own side of the road. At that point, had I been the rider I doubt I would have anticipated the car veering into my lane. The impact occurs at the 20-second mark, so somewhere between one and two seconds between first visibility (when it would not have been clear that the car would veer out of its own lane) and carnage. If the biker had been a pedestrian stood still in the road, I doubt he would have got out of the way.

If you could have done better, you missed out on a career somewhere.

 

[219]

What's that got to do with the price of fish?

Other than the impact on available reaction time , not a lot .

I suppose if pootling along at 30 , a dive into the field might have been an easier option , but it was still Pratt’s fault .

Still can’t get over how apt his name is .

 

[219]

I have no words except WTF
View attachment 91431

I’ll admit that some 30 odd years ago , I took my young stepson slowly round an empty car park with him sitting in front of me on the tank and holding onto the bars ; and with my arms and legs either side of him . No other vehicles present and doubt we exceeded 10mph = great fun for a wee kid .

His mum , being an ex biker , was totally fine with it as her dad had done the same with her when she was small .

 

[219]

Yeah, right

There's a better version of the video published on the South Yorkshire Police web site here.

The biker would have had first visibility of the car rounding the bend at around the 18-second mark - still on it's own side of the road. At that point, had I been the rider I doubt I would have anticipated the car veering into my lane. The impact occurs at the 20-second mark, so somewhere between one and two seconds between first visibility (when it would not have been clear that the car would veer out of its own lane) and carnage. If the biker had been a pedestrian stood still in the road, I doubt he would have got out of the way.

If you could have done better, you missed out on a career somewhere.

What was the following car - it must’ve been doing much the same speed to arrive so soon after and capture the collision and the biker landing .

Were they racing ? At least the other driver cornered safely and stopped without running over the biker .

I attended a similar RTC up Loch Lomond where the biker was hit by an oncoming car ( very similar ) rupturing his tank, with a fireball resulting , but then the poor guy was run over by the truck which had been following him and he was killed :-(

 

[Deleted member 65149]

Defensive Driving!

Any accident does not have a single cause!

Absolutely. Apart from the all too obvious error on the part of the car driver, both he and the motorcyclist should have taken safer lines when approaching the bend. If the car driver had correctly moved well over to the right (yes, into the oncoming lane) on his approach to the bend he would have benefitted by being able to see further round the bend and seen the motorcyclist earlier. The earlier vision would have let him brake slightly earlier as well as reducing the sharpness of the bend, making it easier to negotiate without losing control as he did. To a slightly lesser extent, the motorcyclist would have been better positioned well to the left for a better view round the upcoming bend to his right as he approached it. Ideally he should have stayed to his left all round the bend - not as much fun being the opposite of a racing line, but a lot safer. It may not have saved him, but the odds would have been slightly more in his favour. Defensive driving is all about trying to minimise the consequences of the actions of all those pratts out there.

 

[st13phil]

To a slightly lesser extent, the motorcyclist would have been better positioned well to the left for a better view round the upcoming bend to his right as he approached it. Ideally he should have stayed to his left all round the bend

While it's normal practice to position yourself over to the left on approach to a right-hander, I find that over the last few years our roads have deteriorated to the extent that you can't rely on the surface near the edge of the road being good any more, and instead it's likely to be broken up / populated with potholes / covered in lots of "spoil" debris" from the broken road surface, so I tend to keep further into the lane than I would have in the past.

"Never sacrifice grip for visibility", as the saying goes.

 

[Deleted member 126251]

Nah.
Biker could have been doing 300mph and if the Subaru hadn't crossed the line, they still wouldn't have collided.
You are correct though in your 'not one cause' assertion. The car driver was lacking in skill to take the corner AND lacking in any avoidance skills once he'd screwed up the corner. There's your plurality of causes right there.

If the biker was going faster or slower, they would not have met at that particular moment......etc