thomas said:
I'd want to see the whole clip before jumping to conclusions. I think, in the end of the day, they gambled their lives and one of them lost.
I have seen the BBC clip which shows the speeding, clearly very fast.
I don't understand what you mean about jumping to conclusions - I certainly aren't.
I am writing about pure data. The speed indicated on the bike is a fact, the position of the relevant vehicles in the pictures and the timing on the video is a fact.
I have only asked a question, how did the Astra come to be straddling the white lines in the middle of the road when there were oncoming vehicles?
That isn't jumping to a conclusion, it is asking for explanation.
Yes, the bikes were overtaking at speed and one of the riders paid with their life, but the question still remains, what view did the court have of the actions of the Astra driver?
The fact there was contact between it and the bike makes it relevant, the fact on video there are clearly on-coming vehicles makes the Astra's position in the second picture relevant.
I am asking questions the majority of public don't see as they take journalists word as gospel.
I just took one look at the pictures and have an opinion on how it happened, I am just interested (and amazed) that no-one seems to find the Astra drivers actions to be in any way contributory to the collision, when as clearly depicted in the images they are.
The people that have wrote that the biker 'got what he deserved' due to his speeding have expressed their opinion, but is that not jumping to a conclusion?
God, I love a good debate.