Suspended term for 156mph motorbiker

[marinyork]

It was dangerous for the astra to overtake as
(a) they appeared to be tailgating another car
( there were hatch markings
(c) there was traffic coming in the other direction.
(d) there was someone behind already committed to an overtake, whether you think it reasonable they spotted them or not.

 

[ferret fur]

It was dangerous for the astra to overtake as
(a) they appeared to be tailgating another car
( there were hatch markings
(c) there was traffic coming in the other direction.
(d) there was someone behind already committed to an overtake, whether you think it reasonable they spotted them or not.

(a) I'd agree but it was not relevant to the accident
( Overtaking is still permissable with these markings. If it was dangerous to overtake in this area of road the markings would be solid.
(c) Probably agree but again not a cause of the accident
(d) It clearly was dangerous because someone died, but that doesn't make them culpable for that. If you are going to blame them, especially in terms of gaining a conviction, you'd have to show that it was reasonable for them to have seen the bike.

Let's face it as cyclists we face people doing far worse than the Astra on a daily/hourly/minutely? basis & there is no suggestion that these people ever get done. Just because some poor b*gger paid for it with his life doesn't make the Astra more culpable. I'll repeat, my sympathies lie naturally with the two wheeled fraternity, but the bulk of the blame here is almost entriely with the guy who sadly died.

 

[marinyork]

On ( you're quite wrong. As this had been brought up a second time I will go into it.

The highway code operates on a hierarchy from MUST NOT that is specified in law and should not and do not down to just advice on best ways of doing things. A solid white line with hatch markings means they MUST NOT overtake. Should not is 2nd or 3rd in the pecking order. It's not a I'd really rather you didn't. People here are awfully good at appealing to "direct law" and then saying they weren't breaking that so they're all right. There are many things in the highway code that say should not or do not that could get people killed that'll get you points right through to long prison sentences. The car really should not have been overtaking, it is how it is. The hatch markings are literally there for that reason. The other thing I would say is that some people perhaps have problems judging speed and things in mirrors. That's fine and quite a few people are like that. It just means you shouldn't be engaging in risky overtakes and the resulting predictable accident. Wait.

I really wish people would move beyond the simplified view on here we have of blaming one party. I am a believer that it often takes two things to create an accident, this being no different. Richter 9 recklessness doesn't make richter 5 or 6 recklessness all right. They are both wrong.

 

[shunter]

As a motorcyclist I find it hard to understand why other motorcyclists travel at these excessive speeds on the public highway. Once started I would imagine it would be very difficult for the motorcyclist to get back down to normal speeds due to the adrenalin rush. A race track is the proper location for this type of action.

I use the superior acceleration of my motorcycles to get away from cars at junctions and up to a safe speed away from them.

The driver of the astra 'may' be at fault to a degree as his signal, manouver procedure did not pick up the motorcyclist in his rear but to be honest probably 90% of drivers would not have either and they would not be tuned in to expecting the unexpected.

A motorcyclist on the other hand has to develope the skills of looking for the unexpected as his life is more at risk if e.g. if a car changes direction without signaling or does a unexpected U-turn.

Speeding at 150mph on a motorway with no traffic around is less risky although any motorcyclist must take on board that a blowout or engine failure could have fatal consequences. Where there is more traffic on the roads then a motorcyclist must accept his reponsibilty to not endanger other motorists lives if he takes risks. The motorcyclist in this case gave no regard to to other road users - his crashing bike could have killed another car driver.

His failure to appreciate the vunerability of his own life on the road and his selfishness in disregarding the effect of his death on his relations, friends and innocent road users means that his has left behind a mess for others to clear up.

I would have no problem in banning his friend for life from riding motorcycles as his participation as cameraman in this escapade has only encouraged his own friend to show off.

 

[ferret fur]

Marinyork, I'm not saying you are entirely wrong, but don't forget that the HC says you should wear high viz & cycle helmets.

If the Astra had overtaken on the hatches and hit a bike coming the other way, (or the camper van) then I would say that the HC could be used to add to his culpability but in terms of this crash, I'm just not sure what relevance the hatched markings have. Look, I'm not saying it is a great piece of driving by the Astra, in fact I would say that this is not a good place to overtake & he is clearly impatient, but to say as someone says above, that he should be imprisoned for his driving is way OTT. The reason why the Astra should not be overtaking at this juncture is not because of the risk of a bike doing a ton 300 yards after a roundabout. Ultimately, the speed with which the biker is overtaking and the circumstances in which he is doing it mean that the Astra, for all his faults, doesn't really, in my (motor)cyclist eyes bear that great a responsibilty for the actual crash itself.

 

[marinyork]

That's another misconception though, equating a should not or do not on an equal footing with should and do. They aren't the same thing at all. I understand why people in general get ratty about it as in general people prefer to ignore road markings.

People up and down the land get away with such things the difference here is there was an accident and we have video footage of them being naughty. That might seem harsh but that's how it is. I frequently have people overtake me on solid white lines. It doesn't mean it is right and if god forbid one of these vehicles hit an oncoming vehicle during such an overtake I'd hope they survived but when it came to the post crash analysis I'd basically say they crossed the line, their risk, their fault and there should be punishments handed out. I'm sure they'd not listen and walk scott free, but I'd still be right in saying it.

There is no solid white line.

User you know very well there is a non-solid line and what that means. It means the astra should not have been doing what they did, even if there was a suicidal maniac behind them or not.

 

[xpc316e]

marinyork, when you say that people often overtake you where there are solid white lines, why shouldn't they (if you are cycling)?

 

[thomas]

Marinyork, I'm not saying you are entirely wrong, but don't forget that the HC says you should wear high viz & cycle helmets.

Good point! I don't think anyone on here believes that people without crash helmets should be held partially to blame (or very few).

From what I can make out of the video, if the motorcyclist had not been driving at an excessive speed, gone to overtake slower moving cars and the astra went into him I would agree more with the arguments to blame the driver, or hold him partially responsible.

Now, from the motorcyclists past behaviour I do not think they were anticipating the movement of traffic or particularly cared when they saw the gap they could get through. I also believe that even with double checking a mirror the motorcyclist may not appear to be doing one hundred and silly mile per hour.

In the scheme of things it probably wasn't necessary for anyone to overtake along that stretch of the road. If I was the motorcyclist I wouldn't want to be overtaking that closely at speed.

 

[Mr Celine]

On ( you're quite wrong. As this had been brought up a second time I will go into it.

The highway code blah blah blah

The highway code is not a statement of the law. The law does not prohibit driving on hatched areas bounded by broken lines.

 

[marinyork]

The highway code is not a statement of the law. The law does not prohibit driving on hatched areas bounded by broken lines.

What part of should not do you not understand (same question to everybody else that thinks otherwise)? Also bother to read the whole of my post Mr Celine.

 

[marinyork]

I know there's a white line. It's broken, not solid as you claim, and they mean different things.

See HC 127-131

I did not claim the line was solid and you know that. I've read the HC whereas you keep on ignoring the clear instructions. Should not is crystal clear. You are doing what I said above appealing to "direct" law when you know perfectly well that car should not have been there.

marinyork, when you say that people often overtake you where there are solid white lines, why shouldn't they (if you are cycling)?

When I'm travelling above 10mph it's illegal to cross the line. Someone has painted white lines to tell people not to overtake (with provisions) and constructed a law to back this up. They are painted there because they are exceptionally dangerous places to attempt an overtake of any vehicle.

 

[Mr Celine]

What part of should not do you not understand (same question to everybody else that thinks otherwise)? Also bother to read the whole of my post Mr Celine.

I understand it all perfectly. What part of 'the highway code is not a statement of the law' do you not understand?

 

[campbellab]

That is awful.
The Astra driver was an unobservant idiot, but then he probably didn't expect to have a nutcase biker trying to overtake him at 100+mph in traffic.

Who has priority when both people want to overtake the car infront on a single carriageway, the vehicle going the fastest, the vehicle being impeded the most, the vehicle infront or the vehicle behind?

Anyway, to me it looks like the astra is indicating to overtake just before the bike overtook the vehicle behind it. There was 2 seconds on the video between overtaking the last vehicle and clipping the astra... The biker overtook 3 cars in 5 seconds no-wonder he wasn't seen!

http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/hom...mph-biker/article-1070138-detail/article.html

 

[marinyork]

The definitions of 'must' and 'should' are specific terms in law, apply and mean the same over the whole of the legal system, and are very clear.

'Should' is not a command, it's a recommendation.

"Should wear a helmet' illustrates this perfectly.

There's also 'may', which IIRC is permissive.






Not true. Read the HC again. That statement relates to solid lines. Rule 129. And the 10mph applies to the speed of the vehicle you're overtaking.

Crossing a hatched line is not illegal. You should not unless you have reason to do so and consider it safe. Not 'must not', 'should not'. That's why there's clear differentiation between solid and hatched lines.

If you look at the HC, you'll see that there's always a reference to the relevant law whenever 'MUST' is used. Not a the case with 'should'.

I've already covered these points. You know very well the question asked specifically about solid white lines and I answered in that respect so your points are not needed.

 

[marinyork]

I understand it all perfectly. What part of 'the highway code is not a statement of the law' do you not understand?

What part of if you have an accident and the highway code is used as a guide of culpability do you not understand?