The Random thought thread

[Marty_d]

Saw my first snake of the summer today - just avoided running over him on the bike, which could have been nasty for both of us.

[willedoo]

If you had Taipans there Marty you'd want to be wearing leather pants. They have a bad habit of rearing up and striking passing vehicles. I've had one strike at a Toyota at the top of the wheel level. Tiger snakes up here do the opposite. With an approaching vehicle they do a big aerial backflip and go in the opposite direction.

[red750]

What is it with motor cyclists? An idiot doing over 200kph T-boned a Landcruiser, tipping it on it's side and killing the driver, as well as himself. 

[Litespeed]

Ouch,

 

Excessive speed definitely a factor.

 

If it's a t bone, likely the cruiser pull out in front of bike.

 

Sad.

 

Generally it's biker dies and car driver is unhurt.

[red750]

Country intersection Narre Warren. A bike hitting anything at 200k/h would demolish anything. Rush on wise guy, Hell ain't full yet.

 

                       The intersection.

[old man emu]

I wonder how they determined that the bike was traving at 200 kph?  At a speed of 200 kph the bike would be coveing 55.4 metres per second. I know that the specialist crash investigators will be involved, but that collision only happened a few days ago. There's not enough time for them to calculate speed at impact. I guess that the "200 kph" came from a witness who was passed by the bike and formed the opinion that it was going like a shower of sh!t. I won't deny that the bike was flying. Also, for a bike to be capable of a very high speed, it would have to be a modern bike, with electronic speed display. Anything displayed on the instrument cluster would disappear with the loss of power at impact.

 

Another factor relates to the ability of the driver of the motor vehicle to see the bike.  Wwe know from our flight training that it is difficult to determine the speed of an object approaching from abeam. Further, the frontal area of a bike is small and often dark in clour. If it is dark, it would blend with the colour of the road surface, making it still more difficult to see. Then there the environmental factors such as light and theposition of the  Sun. Were there clouds creating a dull background.

 

Unfortunately, the strict liability of the Law places the blame on teh driver of the vehicle, but commonsense says that the cause was the bike rider.

[facthunter]

If the Landcruiser had not pulled out the accident would not have happened.  Any rider with a fair bit of experience knows that many tin-top drivers make right turns  in front of you and  Hit you on roundabouts  when you are on their right,and pull out from the side of the road without looking carefully. They ALL say "I didn't see you" as if that's a legitimate excuse. Yeah the rider was going too fast, but YOU are supposed to LOOK.

[Marty_d]

Most bikes have headlights on permanently too.

Sounds like speed was definitely a factor (although as OME says, it's probably based on a witness who would have no idea what 200kph looks like).

[facthunter]

It's only 108 Knots. Nev

[old man emu]

6 hours ago, facthunter said:

but YOU are supposed to LOOK.

To look is to use sight to perceive an object.

To see is to notice or become aware of objects and surroundings using your eyes.

To perceive means to become aware of,  to notice. Perception means coming to an opinion, interpreting a situation, based on on i the inputs of looking.

 

There is a great deal of practical difference between looking, seeing and perceiving. You can look and see something, but be unable to perceive what the thing is doing. In my opinion, based on learning and experience, I conclude that the driver did not perceive the situation due to the speed of the bike being something the driver could not perceive due to an inability to form an opinion based on lack of experience of that partcular situation.

 

When I was performing traffic law enforcement using radar, I would observe the approaching vehicle and, based on experience from watching vehicles approaching at speeds below the speed limit, would form an opinion as the whether the vehicle was travelling above the speed limit. Initially I never put a numerial value to that speed. The vehicle ws either 'up it', or not. Then I would release the beam of the radar and the instrument would calculate the speed and provide a numerical display. The number in the display window (if it was  above the signposted speed limit) determined the penalty amount indicated on the infringement notice. I never could accurately determine the speed of a vehicle. The instrument did that for me. All I did was decide whether or not to take a shot with the beam.

[facthunter]

Look involves a field of vision That's directional and distance related. If you are looking at something close the distant things will be out of focus.( Depth of field) If you focus for something at say 200 yards the difference between that and infinity is not much whereas from say 2 feet to 300 feet is a lot. An object approaching near directly at you at High speed is NOT hard to see because in it's frame of reference It's not moving fast at all and may appear almost stationary. Fog or dust can be a factor at longer distances or even with Heat Haze which distorts the atmosphere by refractive index changes with air density. If you can't be sure don't just say "She will be right" Wait till you can be sure. When you have 2 Jets approaching each other the speed involved is faster than a bullet, so you have very little time to react. IF you had a motorcycle on final at 108Knots in decent visibility you SHOULD be able to see it, if you are at the threshold waiting and looking as you should be doing if a vehicle may be likely to come down the road, on your right. Nev

Edited 1 hour ago by facthunter