8/29/2005: Swedish cycle/car wreck @ 155 MPH
 

http://cellar.org/2005/155wreck.jpg

http://cellar.org/2005/155wreck2.jpg

http://cellar.org/2005/155wreck3.jpg

IotD isn't about the outrageously gross, but in this case, somehow the gross bits have been removed for display. The people milling about suggest that this must have been set up for public consumption well after the fact. No blood, no bodies but a clear example of what happens when a bike, going 155, hits the side of a slow-moving car. From the link:

- Swedish Police estimate a speed of ~250 KM/h (for the U.S. folks, that’s 155mph) before the bike hit the slow moving car side-on at an intersection. At that speed, they predicted that the rider’s reaction time (once the vehicle came into view) wasn’t sufficient enough for him to even apply the brakes.

- The car had two passengers and the bike rider was found INSIDE the car with them. The Volkswagen actually flipped over from the force of impact and landed 3m (10 feet) from where the collision took place.

- All three involved (two in car and rider) were killed instantly.

via here

I always think of the clowns on these bikes as suicidal, but it looks like they're murderous in the right situation.

omg

This is still horrifying.

My old high school's SADD does a similar display for prom week. They don't get the motorcycle, though.

Not entirely sure how they removed the bodies and 'tidied' it up, and managed to get the bike back inside - probably don't want to know. What a horrible job that would be.. and who would do it?

motorcycle rider myself - and Griff don't get to high and mighty about bikes (okok, this guy was a murdering clown...but...), as the price of gas goes up... every motorized two wheeled vehicle will see an increase in ridership - easier to park too! and traffic jams? who cares on a bike!

If you look closely at some of the pics, the car appears to have been cut up, prbly by the emergency services on the scene (jaw of life, cutting impact hammer, etc.). You take to top of the car off, pull the cycle out, drain the bodies out, and let the bio-cleanup guys handle the rest. I agree though, what a suck-ass job that would be pull these guys out of the car. Hork! :vomitblu:

I love bikes. It's the 100 mph speed differential which is not pleasing to me.

I suspect the rider entered the car through the rear side window. :eek:
Bikes are wonderful....it's the deteriorating pavement, stupid drivers and deer that made me give it up.

Well, my increasingly longer recovery periods had an influence too. :blush:

Dumb Mother Fu$%er!!! :rar: (I really really really hate stupid drivers)

It's early morning here in Tokyo and I was just readying myself to ride my bike (Bicycle) to work when I checked IotD. Anyone who has been to Tokyo knows how much nerve it takes to ride in Tokyo traffic, after seeing these photos I've just lost my nerve! :worried:

I think I will take the train today!

I could swear we saw this a while back....
Bad scene for us. Even worse for the victims.
Am I the only one who remembers this ... or is it dejavu?

Thanks BigV.. I feel semi-sane again.

its in the what the @#$% thread

Didn't one of those crash somewhat recently?

Actually the VW seems to have held up rather well considering the impact and rolling over. The fact that it could comfortably hold 3 people and the motorcycle is a testement to the practacality of smaller fuel effficient cars vs big SUVs! The Big 3 should take note!

I would point out to the people who assume the motorcyclist is at fault that the original post does not give enough information to make that case. I'm not a motorcycle guy (too much of a pansy) but I know a lot of people who are and typically bike accidents are due to drivers not seeing the biker and taking them out.

There are certainly a ton of idiot cyclist out there but I'm not sure if, as a group, it's fair to say they're worse than drivers.

This picture reminds me of what they tell you when driving in Europe vs. the US. "There are a lot fewer traffic accidents in Europe but a lot more traffic related deaths". Basically, you're pretty much dead if you get in an accident there. That's why their drivers are so well behaved. It's freaky to watch people move out of the way of faster moving vehicles and never hover in the left most lane. Everyone is so polite and they follow the rules. Interestingly enough, hand gestures while driving are illegal in germany and can get you arrested.

Well, thank goodness I had already left for work by the time you posted this or I never would have made it out of the house! ;)

Actually as I passed though Shinjuku station (the world's busiest train station) this morning I noticed a much greater security presence in the station. I think this must be due to the French informing the Japanese government a couple of days ago of a "credible" threat to Tokyo from terrorists :worried:

I guess I'm back on the bicycle tomorrow.

I think the fact that the cyclist was going 155mph is enough to guess that the cyclist was at fault.

While it's true that bikes are often taken out by cars, I think that since the bike was going 155 mph, the bike was clearly at fault. This was Sweden, not Germany. Even Germany has a suggested speed limit on the autobahn, and if I recall correctly it is about half the speed this bike was traveling. Also, the accident occurred at an intersection, not on a superhighway. The only way the driver of the car could share the blame would be if he/she ran a red light. Even if the car stopped at a stop sign, and then pulled out in front of the bike, the bike is still 100% at fault because it was going too damn fast.

The autobahn only has speed limits within the city limits. So the point about this happening at an intersection is well taken, they only happen within the city limits.

Outside of the cities they tend to have speed requirements, like if you're going less than 70Kh you need to be in the right most lane. I've gotten up to 130 mph on the autobahn and was still being passed by other cars. It was a great experience. Thrilling yet terrifying.

Jerry

did you just get your original login back, or do we have two chronoses, both named Jerry?

That bike would have gone clean through the smugmobile. :eek:

Wolf,

Toad hooked me up with my old id, so I'll be using this from now on.

ahhhh.... so much better.

Jerry

Sweet!

This is at least slightly fabricated, and if they make one bit up you need to worry about the rest of the story.

The bike is a Honda VFR400RR. Dating back to the early nineties from the paint scheme. It is speed limted when it leaves the factory to 180 KPH, or 112 MPH. If you de-restrict it you may get to about 125 MPH. But it would take it quite a while to get to that speed as it's only 400cc.

The silencer is made from carbon fibre and is exceptionally fragile yet it did not shatter.

Something impacted with the car in a very serious way - the floor is ripped out where you would imagine the front wheel would hit.

Maybe this bike did hit this car, but not at the speed they claim, and it did not end up where it is now.

Steve

there would not be any pieces of bodywork
plastic left bigger than a fingernail.

If the motorcylce was indeed traveling at the estimated speed of 155 mph that would be equal to 227 feet per second. Convert that to yards for easier visualization and the bike was traveling at roughly 75 yards per second. So to rule out any fault on the part of the car driver, picture yourself in his/her position. You pull up to an intersection, glance left, glance right, see a single headlight a few football fields away. Would you feel confident pulling out? I would. Not knowing that 3 seconds later that tiny headlight in the distance would come tearing through your volkswagon, your passenger, and you. I don't know about the maximum speed of a motorcycle built in the 90's. I don't know about the structural integrity of a volkswagon. I wasn't there when it happened, so as always, I could be wrong.

Welcome TalkIsCheap, and thank you for your service.

I second wolf's welcome, TalkIsCheap. I agree that that the precise speed at which the bike was travelling is not as important as an understanding of what the hell happened here. *I* don't make sure the road is clear OVER the horizon before I cross an intersection either, but clearly, I'm living on borrowed time.

Plus, I love your signature line.

My Rant
 

Guys, I'm a motorcyclist who had a similar (yet MUCH slower) accident than this on a dual carraigeway on a bright sunny day. My impact speed was approx 50-55mph, the car rolled, the bike was mashed - as Steve123 says, judging by the lack of damage to the bike in this pic there's no way this was a 155mph (or anywhere near it) impact. (Also agree on the make/model/speed capabilities of the bike).

The woman who pulled out on me was 15 yards from me when she did - she just "didn't see me" - if I were travelling at the same speed in a bus would she have seen me then?

As for glatt with his "the bike is still 100% at fault because it was going too damn fast" - that's the attitude that kills bikers. We all speed - cars, buses, trucks, vans, bikes - all of us - what exactly is too damned fast? If the road were clear, a dual carraigeway say, with an intersection 3/4 of the way along would you trundle along at 60mph? Nope, didn't think so. (Might not hoon along at a ton plus either though ;-))

To be honest I'm not trying to absolve the rider of any blame as there is not enough information to judge here, but it seems most of you are quick to lay blame somewhere - and most pointing to the biker. I believe that he probably was travelling in excess of the speed limit, that said, it is the drivers responsibility to LOOK (not casually glance) and check that it's clear before pulling out.

At a junction, if there are headlights approaching, whether that is one light or two, look again - try to calculate the speed of approach. If the light is 100 yds away when you first spot it .... where is it now... 80, 50, 20yds? Yes, the guy may well be zipping along at 3000mph, but provided you SEE him then it's your responsibility not to put your ton of steel in the way of him! An extra second or two of thought at a junction could save your life, and that of those around you.

Rant over ;-) (My doesn't this thread stir the emotions)

You're right, it's way harder to overlook a bus than a motorcycle, because buses are much bigger than motorcycles. What exactly is your point?

Maybe something that's harder to see shouldn't drive as fast.

Your argument sounds suspicously to me like "I like to go really fast, and it's everyone else's responsibility to watch out for me." Maybe that's not really what you're saying, but that's the message that's coming across.

If you go really fast, that driver pulling out of a driveway or side street might not see you, but may see the flashing lights behind you.

Of course, that's if the aren't distracted by the helicoper.;)

RE
 

"You're right, it's way harder to overlook a bus than a motorcycle, because buses are much bigger than motorcycles. What exactly is your point?"

My point is I was 15 yards away - had I been travelling at 20mph I still would have hit her as I was that close - had she looked she would have seen me (or she should never have been behind the wheel) - a casual glance which is, at best, all she gave would probably be enough to spot a bus - to see you must first look :right:

Your argument sounds suspicously to me like "I like to go really fast, and it's everyone else's responsibility to watch out for me."

That wasn't really what I meant, although I, like most people, do tend to drive / ride faster than I really ought. :redface:

What I was trying to say is that we are all guilty of speeding, some more than others admittedly, so we shouldn't go pointing the finger and blaming people for speeding when an accident occurs.

If we put more responsibility on the person pulling out of the junction, who should ensure that it clear to do so, we'd have less accidents in the first place, irrelevant of the speed. It's very easy to glance, pull out, <WHAM> sorry mate I didn't see you - oh but you were doing 35 in a 30....:neutral:

It's the whole contradictory attitude to speed that gets me. We all do it yet the moment there's a problem "speed" gets the blame!

I often follow "Sensible drivers" who plod down national speed limit (60mph) roads at 40mph because they are being "Sensible"........but then continue through the country village, past the school doing the same 40mph... Who is more dangerous, the "Sensible driver" or me, who might travel at 80mph down the country lane but slow to 30mph in the town/village near the school?
:eyebrow:

The bike is 100% responsible because it was travelling so fast. The driver of the car saw a speck on the horizon and figured it was safe to pull out. Normally it would be safe to pull out in front of a speck in the distance, but this speck was driven by a 155MPH maniac. A car shouldn't have to carry a radar gun to measure the speed of incoming missles before pulling out onto the road.

glatt, how do you know what the driver saw?

i got in the habit of watching the heads in the cars on side streets when i rode. you cont count on someone seeing you...might as well be a deer bounding out. you have to watch the sides of the roads and let your peripheral vision take care of the middle. tunnel vision kills.

Good advice, LJ. It's much easier to spot trouble in the middle of the road.:thumbsup:

I don't know what the driver saw, but I'm being generous and giving the biker the benefit of the doubt that he would only drive that fast on a long clear stretch of road. Maybe the driver of the car looked, and there was nobody there, because the bike hadn't rounded the curve or passed the truck or whatever.

I'd be very smpathetic to the biker if he was going at or close to the speed limit. But 155 MPH is simply reckless. Other drivers just won't be able to predict what you are doing, because it's not normal. You are asking for an accident.

Start by first asking why someone can look and yet not see the bike. Did you notice the big hole in the center of your vision? It exists. It is why people can look and yet never see something.

When you travel down a road slow enough so that the other driver can look at you and at everything else around ... at least twice? If not, then some drivers will look right at you once and only once - because you are approaching too fast. And then pull right out having never seen you. They looked mutliple times. But if you were going to fast, then only had one oppurtunity to see you - and would not because the human eye has a big hole in it.

To keep it simple, we tell you to not speed. We don't tell you why. We don't tell you why if that other car will pulled out - why it is due to a bike going too fast. Notice the reasons why provide hard logic as to why the bike must go so slow so that others will look at that bike multiple times to finally see it once. It is why humans must always look in all directions at least twice before pulling out. It is why a bike that is going too fast is not seen even when that other driver looks directly at that bike. It is why speed limits are set to provide minimally acceptable safety.

And no, we all don’t routinely speed. Some of us go well below the speed limit in some locations due to limited visibility and other factors that say the speed limit is too high. I am thinking of one intersection in particular with so little visibility that I will sometimes slow down 20 or more MPH. Cross road traffic does not have enough time to see oncoming traffic when traffic does the speed limit. Many crashes occur here. Damn engineer – is what they say behind me. But I don't intend to kill anyone.

And watch that other driver's eyes to see if he looked for you ... multiple times. It is essential that other driver's see your eyes and you see his ... so that each knows what the other may have (or have not) seen.

But then some of us are so *cool* as to tint those windows - so that we can kill someone. Literally, tinted side windows degrade human safety so that a driver can feel superior. It is essential to see how many times another driver watches for you - to avoid killing people - such as yourself and your passengers. For motorcyclists, so dangerous are cars when a cyclist cannot see the other driver's eyes.

Unfortunately, "see and avoid" is not taught to most motorists. There is a difference is HAVING the right of way and GETTING the right of way.

I drive a forty ton behemoth of a Freightliner and still some drivers "didn't see me there". I cannot believe you cannot see a vehicle the size of a small house trundling along, rumbling like a freight train and lit up like a cruise ship at night. What they really meant to say was "I wasn't looking where I was going and thus I didn't see you".

Bob save us all!

Brian

Glatt still doesn't get it - the bike was NOT travelling at 155mph - it's not possible! 155 is a random figure plucked out of thin air to scare / enrage easily led (glatt) drivers into biker-hatred. Also, it is intended to slow motorcycles down somewhat. The problem with such clearly fabricated, exagerated stories is that a) dumb people believe them and b) they immediately lose all credibility and therefore effect when you start questioning the details (as in how come so little damage to the bike? or where does a 125mph vehicle suddenly find an extra 20% speed increase etc).

Look past the quoted figures, think for yourself for once and question what is clearly a staged exhibition....

That said, irrelevant of blame, it remains a tragic accident and a lesson to us all.

It remains only a lesson if you come away knowing why the crash (it was not an accident) happened. Again, one can look down a road only once and not see that Freightliner. Again, it is because, in part, how the eye actually sees - and that big hole in the middle of everyone's eye.

I get it perfectly. My comments are based on the assumtion that the reported speed of 155MPH is accurate. If the bike was going slower, the story changes. As does my opinion.

And I don't hate bikers. I'd feel the same way about a car travelling at 155MPH.

Yeah, 125 mph makes all the difference...'cause that's not at all fast on a road where the speed limit is probably 55-65 mph...:p

I think after 125 mph, going any faster wouldn't change a damn thing. Even to a 'biker'. That's just too damn fast for anything thats not on a "closed course with a professional driver".

In other words: Don't try this on your way home!