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

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

[Tug]

"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

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.

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....

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?

[glatt]

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.

[lumberjim]

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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

[glatt]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

glatt, how do you know what the driver saw?

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Tug

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? ... it is the drivers responsibility to LOOK (not casually glance) and check that it's clear before pulling out.

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

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...

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.

[BrianR]

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

[Tug]

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Tug

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.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Tug

Glatt still doesn't get it - the bike was NOT travelling at 155mpg - 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....

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.

[Elspode]

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

[capnhowdy]

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!