Surely The Car Is At Fault Here.......

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-cambridgeshire-66929271

ok fair enough he was done for no insurance but the actual crash as caused by the car turning right, across on comming traffic, I can't see how the biker is at fault at all.

[barry1010]

The biker wasn't charged with speeding according to that report

[THECORBYLOON]

It might there was no way to measure the speed at the time of the accident.

[barry1010]

There is always a way to measure speed

[retrocop]

//It might there was no way to measure the speed at the time of the accident.//

A.I. (Accident Investigators) from Traffic Division can determine speeds with various instruments  like spring balances,chalk guns , formulae, Tyre adhesion marks etc after a RTC

[Kardashev]

I hope THECORBYLOON is not a road user.

[THECORBYLOON]

I drive a car.

[ToraToraTora]

09:32, PMSL, he's just a proffessional nit picking contrarian kardy, best ignored. He trolls around threads nitpicking, no one pays any attention.

[THECORBYLOON]

TORATORATORA, "He trolls around threads nitpicking, no one pays any attention."

 

Why are there responses to my posts then?

 

For someone who claims to be in Mensa, your reasoning appears to be faulty or as a certain fictional character might say, "illogical".

[Zacs-Master]

'because he was an idiot? Badly advised?'
 

or you're wrong and it wasn't 100% his fault. Maybe. 

[ToraToraTora]

Zacs, forget what I think, have a look for yourself, what do you think? Is a car turning right, across on comming traffic not obliged to wait for it? Yes the guy's a prat, he had no insurance, was doing stupid things earlier, yes yes, all irrelevant to this actual incident. The car turned across the path of on comming traffic rather than giving way, end of.

[Zacs-Master]

We don't know the full facts, Tora. He was on a provisional license and there may have been extenuating circumstances not reported. I know you're a biker so I think you may be looking at the incident with a smidgen of bias. 

[ToraToraTora]

ZM: We can see the full facts right in front of our eyes, all you need is in that video. Even if he was speeding it's the car's fault but it does not look that fast to me and he was not prosecuted for speeding anyway.

[ToraToraTora]

I am a biker and car driver. What other "facts" are relevant?

[youngmafbog]

I think jno @00:55 has it.

The car should have checked and not turned unless sure to make it.  I suspect the driving without due care for the biker was due to dashcam footage of him being a pillock beforehand.  We all know the sort TTT, they give the rest of us bikers a bad name.

 

[New Judge]

We don't know the full facts, Tora

And there’s the rub. The incident caught in the clip may only be the culmination of an episode of bad driving, of which there is ample evidence. Quite frankly, from the clip, it is clear the bike was doing probably 60 or 70mph in what appears to be a 30mph zone. Other drivers in that area are entitled to assume that there will not be another vehicle travelling at such a speed in their vicinity. But in any case it doesn’t matter because, as I said, we only have the spectacular end to what was probably a much more prolonged episode.

 
If the biker had pleaded Not Guilty, his trial would probably have lasted between a couple of hours and half a day. We have 15 seconds to make up our minds and, as Zacs says, we don’t know the full facts. 

The biker wasn't charged with speeding according to that report

He wouldn’t have, barry. If his excess speed played a part in his careless driving he would not have been charged with both. Imagine being charged with murder: you do not get charged with GBH as well.

[Zacs-Master]

'We can see the full facts right in front of our eyes'
 

you can see 10 / 15 seconds. As NJ says it could be the culmination of him riding like a looney for miles. In other words he was an accident waiting to happen. 

[ToraToraTora]

zm: "you can see 10 / 15 seconds. As NJ says it could be the culmination of him riding like a looney for miles. In other words he was an accident waiting to happen. " - yes but I am talking about the car pulling across his path. He may have been riding like a loony maybe the prosecution was for something earlier but this post is about the car pulling across. The link seems to infer that the biker was prosecuted for this incident perhaps it was not perhaps, as YMB suggests it was for being a pillock earlier. Judge I'm an experienced biker and that was nowhere near 60-70 but even if it was the onus is on the car to make sure the road is clear surely. Judge would the car driver also have been prosecuted for due care?

[New Judge]

It's questionable whether the bike was even visible to the car when he began his right turn. I say "questionable" because it is not clear.  If you look at that location on Streetview:

https://www.instantstreetview.com/@52.217091,0.170328,202.59h,0.11p,1.42z,Cx1QJ8vgzAXpV66W9VXqqQ

You will see that approaching the junction from the direction the biker was travelling, the road curves to the right. This makes sighting oncoming traffic (from either direction) problematic.

There is no doubt the bike was travelling at considerably in excess of 30mph. If you play the clip at half speed you can see that he is pulling away quite rapidly from the following traffic. It is also telling that the biker took no avoiding action whatsoever. He did not reduce his (considerable) speed and he did not change direction. Even if the car driver was at fault, it is incumbent on the other party to take what avoiding action he can. You can't just plough on because the other driver is seemingly at fault. In good conditions (as was apparent in the incident) from 30mph a bike can come safely to a halt in well under 20 metres (about the length of two buses). The errant car was clearly visible to him when he was considerably further than that from the point of impact.

Careless driving is that which "falls below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver." A competent and careful driver would not have approached that juction at such a speed and would have taken some avoiding action to prevent a collision. The car driver may not have been entirely blameless. But the biker's poor driving contributed considerably to the outcome.

[ToraToraTora]

judge: " It is also telling that the biker took no avoiding action whatsoever. He did not reduce his (considerable) speed and he did not change direction." - He did watch it again he brakes and snakes sideways to his right, that's because heavy breaking on a bike unloads the rear wheel. You can see it coming round on him. He hits the car at an angle and glances off it's near side rear quarter.

[Canary42]

As is often the case with RTIs, both parties are at fault - the car for turning and the biker for speeding.

As most of us have experienced, when only one party is at fault the other party can frequently take compensating action - but if both are at fault then accidents more commonly occur.