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

[chronos]

Wolf,

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

ahhhh.... so much better.

Jerry

[wolf]

Sweet!

[steve123]

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

[Bruce 9012]

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

[TalkIsCheap]

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.

[wolf]

Welcome TalkIsCheap, and thank you for your service.

[BigV]

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.

[Tug]

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)

[axlrosen]

Originally Posted by Tug

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Tug

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 ;-))

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.