On tv, Cause of crash not first impression

[RickSkye]

I just watched a program where the police try to work out the cause of the crash.
So this one looked like, a car pulled out of a junction and the motorcycle, on the main road, hit the side of the car. Thinks .... car did not see bike this turned out to be correct, but car was not charged.
Turns out bike was stolen 2 months before, no insurance, tax or licence, doing 70 mph in a 30.
The car view was 50m, when car pulled out, bike was 98 meters away. Investigation showed bike had big rear wheel skid. Bike hit car, estimate 40 to 50 mph.
I found it interesting that my natural bias towards the "sorry mate, didn't see you" scenario was systematically shot down in flames.

 

[Rubberchicken]

Bike crashes tend to be thick with biases anyway don't they.

From our POV you indeed get the SMIDSY, from the car's point of view (and a lot of the public's) we're all going way too fast anyway... (Granted, a lot of bikers are, a bit to a lot, but certainly not all and you can just as easily get that response while doing 10 under the limit.)

And it's still way too bloody easy to not see a bike that's right there. Fast skinny things coming right at you... I always erratically weave a bit if I suspect an imminent SMIDSY, if I can get them thinking what on earth is that plonker up to, then at least they've seen me.

 

[Lutin]

Very interesting programme. Both this and the previous programmes show just how much information can be gleaned from security cameras - and how many of them there are.

 

[RickSkye]

Yeah, the amount of cameras is a bit scary