What's Your View?

[TWR]

On the news last night, Motor bike rider travelling at 100MPH on a Trunk road get killed by an oncoming driver turning right, who's at fault?

[Cloverjo]

Both, I'd say. The bike rider shouldn't have been travelling so fast, and the car driver should have seen him approaching.

[Cloverjo]

Although, if there was a bend shortly before the junction, the other driver (just realised you didn't say he/she was in a car) might not have seen the motorbike and wouldn't have had time to react.

[hc4361]

Definitely more information needed. The police can spend hours at the accident scene gathering evidence, measuring skid marks, taking photographs not just of the vehicles but of the road itself to try and determine who is at fault.

Weather conditions and lighting also play a part. If it was dusk or misty and the biker didn't have lights on he might not be easily seen. If it were bright sunlight the driver may have been dazzled. If it were wet or icy neither vehicle may have been able to stop in time when they became aware of the other.

Blind bends, dips, sharp inclines in the road could also be factors. They could both be at fault.

[TWR]

Something occurred a few years back to one of the GHV Drivers at a firm where I was working, He fiddled an night out allowance, I will come back to the OP Later regards this Accident.

[TWR]

HGV even.

[Peter Pedant]

and this is what it looks like from the bikers point of view
strong stomachs needed.

My sister's (still alive) last word when someone turned 'right into' her, in another collision, was - "if that car doesnt stop it will crash right into us'

( she was the one not turning right )

If there is a civil action ( yeah yeah I know getting really weird ) then the maxim "ex turpi cause non oritur action" - sudduv if you are breaking the law then you cant sue
and that depends on how near the unlawful act that bars the action, was to the accident.
Here I think very close

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NBrSCg71Qk

[mushroom25]

at the inquest, it was stated the car driver would have been able to see the bike for about 7 seconds, given his speed. the car driver may have assumed the bike's speed to be 60, and calculated himself to be clear of the junction before arrival of the bike. nevertheless it was a risk, a risk the police believe he should not have taken, and prosecuted for death by careless driving, which was upheld ans an 18month ban handed down.

[Old_Geezer]

From the OP I would say both held some responsibility but the lorry turning right, provided it was indicating correctly, should not be expecting a far away bike to be approaching at that speed and thus a problem. I would hope the majority of responsibility was on the biker to ensure they were not placing themselves in danger.

Although I say that knowing they put out loads of signs saying "think bike" knowing that'll only affect the viewer's thoughts for a short while, and human nature ensures one quickly looks out for what is normally seen. Going against human nature, in the hope others who opt to use risky transport will get away with it, is not a sensible way to go. All the more so if they are travelling along a trunk road at that speed.

[Old_Geezer]

I do update to say I have just re-read and seen that the car and bike were going in opposite directions. But the gist is correct IMO. Both are responsible, it's a question of what percentage goes to who.

[lozzer50]

just proves the point that speeding kills

[mikey4444]

I agree with OG here. Any vehicle traveling at 100mph is going to be going far to fast for any other road user to be able to do anything useful. Bikes are notoriously hard to see as well. The clip posted by PP at 10:05 shows the kind of atrocious motorbike driving that I see every day. Appalling in fact.

This accident raised by TWR shows quite clearly that the motorbike was the main cause of the accident.

[TWR]

That HGV Driver that was on a Fiddle that should have been away from home had parked the lorry outside his house, over night a car ran in the back of the lorry, the car driver took the case to court and won it, it was proved if the lorry had been where it should have been and not outside his house, the accident would not have happed, it the case of the Motorbike, if the rider had kept to the correct speed limit, In my view, the accident would not have happened as the rider would not have been in that spot when the car turned, correct me if I'm wrong.

[TWR]

That's my view Mickey without a doubt.

[mikey4444]

But TWR...if it hadn't have been this van, it would have been something else. The motorcyclist was travelling at a ridiculous speed. I am not sure what the consequence of this accident was, as you have not posted a link but not many, if any motorcyclists survive a crash as 100mph.

[EDDIE51]

Already covered here
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1363394.html#answer-9198997
The bike would have been 312 Metres away when the driver saw it no wonder he thought he had time to pull out !

[TWR]

I have no link Mickey.

[Baldric]

This one I think, Video is Graphic!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746026/Please-don-t-die-like-boy-Mother-releases-harrowing-footage-son-s-death-97mph-horror-motorbike-crash-try-stop-families-going-agony.html

[mikey4444]

Here is another video link, this time from the BBC News website...quite clearly shows what bad driver some motorcyclist are. My commiserations to his Mum and thanks for allowing this to be broadcast :::

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-29064891

[mikey4444]

Crossed in the post it would seem Baldric !

[TWR]

Thank You Baldric, that's the one.