Slow driver causes accident

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by xdc351

If all your assumptions were correct then you would be also, however your assumtions are not correct.

There was no way the stopping at that location could have been considered safe or even legal (double white lines are there for a reason) especially for a stick. It was not an obstuction, as this implies that the road was blocked or in some way the car was unable to negotioate safely around or over the stick which is absolutely not true. The bike, also, was travelling no-where close to 80kmh. If you were on the bike or even in a car and could not see the way this guy was driving you would have hit him no question about it, it just meant that the combination of a helmet, thick foilage and cliffs lining the road and negotiating his way past me on the previous straight section before the bends that he was unable to see him. It is quite amazing how quickly an object travelling 1/3 your speed will find itself in front of you especially when that object comes to a complete stop in a location they cannot be seen.

Staggering to me how quick people are to judge. I started this thread to point out that driving slow is not nessesarily driving safe, but seriously some of these comments beggar belief.

Sorry, going to have to agree to disagree on this one. With a combination of the motorcyclist being alert and scanning ahead, driving at an appropriate speed for the corner and keep a safe following distance, the incident would not have happened. As for the helmet being a restriction to vision, no way. Helmets are designed to allow more than adequate vision for the safe operation of a motorcycle. It is only the edge of peripheral vision that is restricted but considering he hit a car that was in front of him, this is not an issue. If he was hit by a car coming out of a side street this would be an issue.

By the way, I do have a motorcycle license and have many years experience riding road bikes, my primary transport used to be a bike so I know the vision field of a full face helmet very well.

I have never said it was a great place to stop, I have just said it is still the motorcyclists fault and the car driver could under the law defend his actions. I know who will be coughing up from a damage repair point of view, not the car driver.

Am pretty sure 20km/h or more under the speed limit is dangerous driving isn't it???????

I am very sure you are wrong, read the legislation

Unreasonably obstructing drivers or pedestrians
(1) A driver must not unreasonably obstruct the path of another
driver or a pedestrian.
Offence provision.
Note Driver includes a person in control of a vehicle — see the
definition of drive in the dictionary.
(2) For this rule, a driver does not unreasonably obstruct the
path of another driver or a pedestrian only because:
(a) the driver is stopped in traffic; or
(b) the driver is driving more slowly than other vehicles
(unless the driver is driving abnormally slowly in the
circumstances).
Example of a driver driving abnormally slowly
A driver driving at a speed of 20 kilometres per hour on a length of road
to which a speed-limit of 80 kilometres per hour applies when there is
no reason for the driver to drive at that speed on the length of road.

I will leave it that, thanks for the discussion.

[xdc351]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Sorry, going to have to agree to disagree on this one. With a combination of the motorcyclist being alert and scanning ahead, driving at an appropriate speed for the corner and keep a safe following distance, the incident would not have happened. As for the helmet being a restriction to vision, no way. Helmets are designed to allow more than adequate vision for the safe operation of a motorcycle. It is only the edge of peripheral vision that is restricted but considering he hit a car that was in front of him, this is not an issue. If he was hit by a car coming out of a side street this would be an issue.

By the way, I do have a motorcycle license and have many years experience riding road bikes, my primary transport used to be a bike so I know the vision field of a full face helmet very well.

I have never said it was a great place to stop, I have just said it is still the motorcyclists fault and the car driver could under the law defend his actions. I know who will be coughing up from a damage repair point of view, not the car driver.

I do want to point out that I was not having a go at you personally in the last section of my previous post.

Yes I hear what your saying about the helmet but you have to understand that the focus of the rider would have been on safely passing me and not on the shadow of a car hundreds of meters in front. We are talking about a road that makes the Great Ocean Road look like a straight line and the few fleeting glimpses of the car that I saw would have been virtually impossible to see with me in the way, especially if his head was slightly lowered. There's no way you can see the same out of full face helmet when on a sports bike compared to sitting in a car.

As you would well know or at least be in constant fear of, there's no way to hit the pavement and not feel pain and hitting the brakes hard on a bike is not the same as hitting them in a car.

All said and done there weren't any injuries so the fight over insurance is a pretty small fight in comparison to what it could have been.

[JC]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Sorry, going to have to agree to disagree on this one. With a combination of the motorcyclist being alert and scanning ahead, driving at an appropriate speed for the corner and keep a safe following distance, the incident would not have happened. As for the helmet being a restriction to vision, no way. Helmets are designed to allow more than adequate vision for the safe operation of a motorcycle. It is only the edge of peripheral vision that is restricted but considering he hit a car that was in front of him, this is not an issue. If he was hit by a car coming out of a side street this would be an issue.

By the way, I do have a motorcycle license and have many years experience riding road bikes, my primary transport used to be a bike so I know the vision field of a full face helmet very well.

I have never said it was a great place to stop, I have just said it is still the motorcyclists fault and the car driver could under the law defend his actions. I know who will be coughing up from a damage repair point of view, not the car driver.



I am very sure you are wrong, read the legislation



I will leave it that, thanks for the discussion.

Gecko - I would normally agree with you, but just because something isn't specfic in legislation, doesn't mean it doesn't defy logic and common sense. In good traffic conditions, on an appropriately rated raod, 20km/h under the limit is simply TOO SLOW! It is dangerous for every driver following, especially those who wish to actually do a speed closer to the limit.

And stopping in the middle of the road for anything other than something that actually makes travel impossible or dangerous (ie an obstacle), is in itself dangerous - so stopping for a twig is a joke, and there is no way an ordinary person would ever deem a twig to be an obstacle. Certainly, I doubt a judge would deem the actions of the driver who did stop for a twig to be the actions of a resaonable driver; more likely the actions of an incompetent driver and one whose judgement must be questioned, so probably should have their license cancelled for the safety of all road users. And no, i am not kidding. Poor judgement about stopping in that circumstance would be the tip of the iceberg - imagine this person in peak hour, and then it starts to rain; I hate to think what they would do.

Stopping or, worse, swerving, for a small animal is also a joke; how many accidents have been fatals that didn;t need to be because someone swerved and either hit an oncoming car, or a tree etc? ie, people who swerve on a busy highway to avoid a kangaroo? Hitting a kangaroo is not normally fatal to the occupants of the car. Swerving to miss a kangaroo (while travelling at say 100 on a highway) can be fatal to the driver, other occupants and other road users if the swerving is severe and the driver loses control (happens quite a bit).

Common sense is losing its plac ein our society because people claim it's not law; there was a time when common sense and courtesy formed the basis of law.
/rant. Phew!

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by xdc351

I do want to point out that I was not having a go at you personally in the last section of my previous post.

No issue here.

Yes I hear what your saying about the helmet but you have to understand that the focus of the rider would have been on safely passing me and not on the shadow of a car hundreds of meters in front. We are talking about a road that makes the Great Ocean Road look like a straight line and the few fleeting glimpses of the car that I saw would have been virtually impossible to see with me in the way.

What you describe to me there suggests the rider was driving too fast for the road and not scanning ahead far enough. But i was not there. Arriving at any obstacle quicker than you can brake and avoid in bends means you were going too fast. That is the simple fact and any competent driving or riding instructor will agree

As you would well know or at least be in constant fear of, there's no way to hit the pavement and not feel pain and hitting the brakes on a bike is not the same as hitting them in a car.

Yes and no, depending on the type of bike. For example, my Honda CBR900RR fireblade, due to larger brakes in comparison to the weight than a car, could pull up quicker than my car. Disclaimer here is this greatly dependent on rider skill and emergency braking on a bike takes a lot more skill and practice than a car. A skilled rider can pull up a bike so hard that it will lift the rear wheel in the on a capable high power road bike, try that in a car (although sometimes the Mini feels like it does).

All said and done there weren't any injuries so the fight over insurance is a pretty small fight in comparison to what it could have been.

Could not agree with you more.

[geckoGT]

Really is time for a cops or lawers perspective on this.

My attitude is, I will use a speed that allows stopping within my visual field, scan as far ahead as possible and maintain safe following distances, that way I will not have to try this one out in court. I hope everyone else does the same.

[xdc351]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

What you describe to me there suggests the rider was driving too fast for the road and not scanning ahead far enough. But i was not there. Arriving at any obstacle quicker than you can brake and avoid in bends means you were going too fast. That is the simple fact and any competent driving or riding instructor will agree

If this were to be taken as a literal translation of proper driving/riding technique, it would mean coming to a complete stop at the entry to a blind corner and poking your head round the bend to ensure the coast was clear before continuing. So while correct in theory, it's not exactly practical on the open road.

Like I said, I had just a few glimpses to see what was up ahead as he moved through each bend and that was without having anything in my way. As soon as he passed me I backed off to give him room, but happened to quip to my G/F "I don't reckon he knows whats ahead" as more of a joke... but then I wasn't to know there was a stick on the road up ahead either.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Yes and no, depending on the type of bike. For example, my Honda CBR900RR fireblade, due to larger brakes in comparison to the weight than a car, could pull up quicker than my car. Disclaimer here is this greatly dependent on rider skill and emergency braking on a bike takes a lot more skill and practice than a car. A skilled rider can pull up a bike so hard that it will lift the rear wheel in the on a capable high power road bike, try that in a car (although sometimes the Mini feels like it does).

I would suggest his current model R1 was more than capable of slowing fast enough to detach his retinas, but trying to apply that braking force at the apex of a blind turn, while keeping it in your lane, with zero notice, is another story altogether. Perhaps Rossi could have done it, it still doesn't excuse the driver of the car making a terrible and IMHO illegal decision to stop where he did, for the reasons he did.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by xdc351

If this were to be taken as a literal translation of proper driving/riding technique, it would mean coming to a complete stop at the entry to a blind corner and poking your head round the bend to ensure the coast was clear before continuing. So while correct in theory, it's not exactly practical on the open road.

There is the simple reason we are going around in circles. You do not seem to grasp the concept of traveling at a speed that allows hazard perception, reaction and stopping in one visual distance (based on your above comment, but I do not truly believe this). It is a safe driving technique and all competent driving instructors should teach this. That field is extended by use of good road positioning, something a competent motorcyclist will know very well.


I am not suggesting he stop and poke his head around a corner, I am treating you with respect, could you do the same for me. I could say that from your remarks it appears that he was tucked down on the tank, watching the tacho and using blind luck to guide him (but I bet he wasn't)


I am bored now, out of it.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by xdc351

There was no way the stopping at that location could have been considered safe or even legal (double white lines are there for a reason) especially for a stick. It was not an obstuction, as this implies that the road was blocked or in some way the car was unable to negotioate safely around or over the stick which is absolutely not true. The bike, also, was travelling no-where close to 80kmh. If you were on the bike or even in a car and could not see the way this guy was driving you would have hit him no question about it, it just meant that the combination of a helmet, thick foilage and cliffs lining the road and negotiating his way past me on the previous straight section before the bends that he was unable to see him. It is quite amazing how quickly an object travelling 1/3 your speed will find itself in front of you especially when that object comes to a complete stop in a location they cannot be seen.

If the motorcyclist was unable to stop for an unexpected obstruction on the road then the motorcyclist was either not paying enough attention and/or travelling too fast for the road conditions. All the rest is just smoke and mirrors and not relevant to the accident.

[XR6_661]

I would have just picked a decent enough bit of road and blown past the driver and forgot about the whole situation...

Feel for the motor cyclist though.

[sd1800]

Originally Posted by 84ltd

Very good post mate but unfortunetly driving in melbourne means any gap between cars no matter how small seems to be an invitation to merge. I generally like a couple of car lengths but you can guarantee that someone will fill it pretty quickly no matter what speed traffic is flowing at.

I cannot agree more with this.

Sitting on Southern Cross drive in peak hour everyone is doing a average of about 30kmph for prob 7-8km. I usually leave about 5 or 6 car lengths so I have abit of a buffer and don't have to stop completely if the traffic in front stops to a halt but you always get these ****************** smartarses who seem to think that moving one spot up in traffic is going to get you to work quicker.