David Holmes’ family have released footage from his helmet camera showing the crash that killed him.
Inevitably this raises the spectre of “speed kills” and, despite Holmes’ excessive speed, I maintain that it doesn’t. To say that speed kills is simplistic and reduces riding and driving safely to constantly watching the speedometer.
What we had here was a classic “sorry mate, I didn’t see you”. The driver claimed that he didn’t see the bike. Okay, I accept that bikes can be more difficult to see. We can blend into the traffic, be concealed by parked cars or any of the other distractions that can obscure a driver’s view along the road. It’s one reason we talk to novices about visibility. The Highway Code recommends headlamps during daylight hours and anyone on a modern motorcycle has no choice anyway as we no longer have light switches. Likewise it recommends wearing high visibility clothing. All of which is very well, however, if a driver doesn’t look, he will not see, so the rider has to fall back on defensive riding.
It is here that I take a more controversial view. We share the roads. It doesn’t matter how many good drivers there are out there, we share the roads with imbeciles who really shouldn’t have a driving licence. We have no way of telling which is which until a situation develops. Consequently, we have to assume the worst and have a plan B in place when we cross their paths. This is riding defensively. I take the view that defensive riding should be the first line of defence, not the last. Consequently, I place no faith on visibility aids – yes, I know, I preach this because I have to as it’s part of the CBT syllabus, but I also drive home very firmly the defensive riding mantra. Every time you cross the path of another road user, there is a risk of collision, so have a plan B. Adjust your speed of approach so that you can do something to avoid the collision if the worst happens.
And, of course, this is what Holmes failed to do. Riding at ninety-odd miles per hour on a public road is pretty reckless most of the time anyway because of the hazards present. Continuing to do so on the approach to a junction leaves no get out clause if the worst happens – and that is precisely what happened. It takes two to make an accident. The idiot who fails to take effective observation and moves across the path of another vehicle and the rider who fails to anticipate the possibility and plan accordingly. I don’t care about fault; I care only about anticipating the hazard and avoiding the collision.
There are two ways we can minimise our exposure to hazards – moving about in the road and adjusting our speed such that if the worst happens and we have nowhere to go, we can stop. And that, frankly, is the definition of a safe speed. Nothing to do with arbitrary speed limits imposed by myopic, politically motivated, anti-motorist local authorities; can I stop in what I can see to be clear? If the answer is “yes” then it is a safe speed.
This tragedy wasn’t about speed, that was merely an exacerbating component. It was about the failure to anticipate the actions of another road user and to have an alternative plan in place.
————-
As an addendum to this, I spent some time wading through the comments. Without exception, people are using the term “speed limits” when what they should be using is; “appropriate speed”. The two are not the same thing at all.
I lived for a number of years in Ukraine which has a mandatory seven year prison sentence for those who kill while driving, with the obvious caveat that it doesn’t count if you are a politician or an oligarch. This sentence would sharpen the senses of road users in the UK.
There was an article in Bike a number of years ago about motion camouflage, it is what dragon flies use to catch their prey, which is come from the side at a constant speed and one suggestion was zigzagging near a junction to ensure that the motorist sees you.
Unfortunately there are far too few repercussions for those who kill while in charge of car in the UK due to negligence.
I tend to work on the assumption that they won’t see me and ride accordingly. Consequently I don’t go overboard on visibility aids.
”I lived for a number of years in Ukraine which has a mandatory seven year prison sentence for those who kill while driving …
That seems a little harsh. What about in instances like this, where the person killed has to share at least part of the blame for his demise? Or cyclists who gleefully jump red traffic lights and get themselves run over by oncoming traffic?
I think Japan has the onus on the road user that kills (or injures) to prove that they were not in the wrong rather than the other way round too.
I think that being hit by a motorcycle travelling at 40+ meters/sec round a bend in the road while the rider was concentrating on ‘thanking’ the car they just passed (way too close) rather than where they were going might mitigate against them being too harshly punished though.
Spot on L.
I moved to Herefordshire from Greater Manchester back in the ’80s and was appalled at the poor driving. After living there for a while, I realised that the empty roads have a lot to do with it. Drivers in urban areas HAVE to watch every junction because there is a high likelihood of some idiot shooting out of it, whereas you can travel 10 miles in Herefordshire and not pass another vehicle.
Having said that, I then moved to Portugal, so I have to take back what I said about Hereford drivers
Ah, yes, Portugal… Could be worse, could be Italy…
Obviously neither of you have driven in Cambodia, and in particular, Phnom Penh. It is complete anarchy. The Italians are IAM star pupils by comparison. 🙂
Having spent many years of my life driving professionally in both small (van) and large (38 ton artic) vehicles, I very early on adopted the approach that every other vehicle on the road was being driven by a complete moron, and adjusted my driving style to accommodate that. And I agree totally with you on ‘safe speed’. 100 mph is perfectly safe when conditions allow.
Actually, 125 or 200 mph are perfectly safe speeds, in the right place -on a railway.
“Speed Kills” is utter, total, lying bollocks.
I would like to know what the road was like behind the motorcycle. Was it a straight, in which case the car should have seen him, or was there a bend, in which case the bike may not have been in view when the car started to move.
There are plenty of junctions round here with poor visibility where anyone pulling out would have no chance of seeing anyone approaching at 100mph.
Going by the footage, pretty straight. He had already overtaken two vehicles prior to the collision. The problem, therefore, was his failure to moderate his speed on the approach to a junction where a vehicle crossing his path was a high probability.
There is plenty of paint warning of the junction too, so there is little reason to believe that he was caught unaware of a hazard – unless he was not concentrating on what was happening ahead (I don’t think he was) and that was a fatal error of judgement.
Two things to remember when ‘Thinking Bike.’ ‘Beware of the Hun in the Sun,’ cos the blighters come from behind out of nowhere, and ‘If Winter comes, can Spring be far behind?’ because they tend to go around in pairs. Always look twice, and use your mirrors, ALL of them! And know your blind spots; bikers love to sit in those.
This is something we specifically warn new riders about. I.e. don’t
Something I constantly say to my wife is “Drive carefully, and be aware”. She inevitably replies that she’s a good driver – and she is good – but I tell her “Assume that everyone else on the road is an idiot, and in a high proportion of cases you’ll be right”.
And her being a 60yr old lady in a Hyundai Atoz seems to be a red rag to a bull to so many younger drivers…
And to L_R in previous….
I drive an LWB Land-Rover, which seems to “provoke” some people to try to refuse to let me past, or to pass me, at whatever cost – doing this on a twiddly country lane is suicide from their p.o.v. – because they really have no idea how GOOD said beast’s cornering is – a BMW-driver once tried to pass me on a steeply curved m-way approach slip – he damned nearly rolled it over the armco & had to stop…..
I also have an A4 sheet in my n/s rear window saying:
“If you can read this I probably can’t see you – BACK OFF!”
Some things about the 38 year old Mr. David Holmes screamed out.
He rode an immaculate RGV 250 Suzuki. They’re very light, massively flickable and oh so easy to tune the nuts off. Looking at the expansion chambers, it had been fettled.
It’s essentially a race bike that’s road legal. It’s tiny with a very narrow profile and Mr. Holmes was wearing a black and white jacket as well as helmet that matched his machine. From the camera angle, he was still in the crouch position until his “what the….”, when he sat upright. VERY difficult to see at a glance.
No RGV has a wired in headlight. The last one was produced ten years before 2006. From the video it seems Mr. Holmes did not have his on at the time.
The helmet cam. Why? I can only assume it was there to remind him of a rare event on a much loved and cared for motorcycle. Or to upload on youtube. Either way, much of what I saw was “for the camera”.
It was a 2 lane road with a 60 mph limit. Lots of traffic on that road. No excuse, no justification, it’s a vehicle and it’s subject to the same rules as any other user. Reckless, juvenile behavior.
For sure the accident was caused by the twat who pulled out in front of him, however we all have junctions identical to that in the video and the road on the left was partially obscured by trees.
Any experienced and competent rider would have slowed down, even if sticking to the 60 mph limit. The one thing the RGV has is superb brakes, however Mr. Holmes never applied them and his reaction time was glacial.
Mr. Holmes came across as a fair weather, infrequent rider. He’s one of many who died this year and more will do so before the end of this riding season – and next year as well and so on. Only difference is the camera and – for sure – the message is sinking in. Take care at junctions.
Always make eye contact with the car driver, watch to see if their wheels start to turn and have a finger or two on your brakes. Ride within your limits and, if you’ve got a very powerful or heavy machine, then make sure you’re physically fit.
All very interesting speculation – but the bike he was riding when he crashed was not an RGV but an FJR 1300.
Do you want to have another go with your ‘he did not have his headlight on’ argument now? I’m not even convinced that the helmet camera was designed to record footage specifically for Youtube, or that he (or others) go out especially to ride in a way that will provide interesting clips – sure folk will get fed up with hours of recordings with nothing happening, but that is the reality for most people, most of the time. It is only the examples of horrendus behaviour that get the viewers.
I don’t disagree that the rider was riding without due care, but the driver that turned was not ‘a twat’ any more than you are for imagining that ‘not having a headlight on’ would make any difference whatsoever. There were two people on that road who were not paying attention or using the road properly – they met in the middle.
The remainder of your post is just platitudes – the rider largely caused his own death, the footage is sobering and I am impressed that the family let it be used. It has raised the issue of how people should all use the roads in a meaningful way.
Over the years, I’ve had heated discussions about daytime headlights and visibility aids. I’ve lost the argument given that modern machines give us no option. Yet no one has ever come up with any robust evidence that they make the slightest bit of difference. The dangerous driver is the one who doesn’t pay attention, consequently visibility aids are moot. The only sure-fire defence against the inattentive driver is an attentive rider, not passive accoutrements such as daytime lights and hi-viz clothing.
Drivers would not expect you to be doing much more than 60 miles per hour, which is the national speed limit for such roads. 70 at a pinch. 97 is insane.
In my view, the rider was primarily at fault here. Nobody turning at a junction is going to assume that distant gleaming shape up ahead is doing just shy of 100 mph. Especially as the driver would be seeing the rider end-on, rather than from the side, which makes accurately gauging its speed far more difficult. The road is dead straight in both directions, as can be seen here:
https://www.google.it/maps/@52.6669121,1.1008232,3a,75y,281.99h,80.93t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1skIFYmGKd5lZrGmbbjhWxsg!2e0?hl=en
As the video shows the rider weaving in and out of traffic, it’s easy to see how the driver might have looked down the road just as Mr. Holmes had pulled back in. Not seeing anything obviously dangerous, the driver then proceeded to indicate* and start the turn, unaware that their information was incomplete.
As you say, motorcyclists—all road users, in fact—should be aware of such possibilities and act accordingly.
* (“Mirror, signal, manoeuvre” is a terrible slogan. It places too much emphasis on the mirrors, which means your information about oncoming traffic is going to be out of date by the time you actually start your manoeuvre. It also means you’re not expected to check again once you’ve started signalling. How do you know how the other road users are going to react to your manoeuvre if they didn’t know about it until you started signalling your intentions? “Scan, Signal, Scan, Manoeuvre” makes more sense to me, though I’m sure someone will come up with a more memorable version. In this case, “scan” means to check all around your vehicle, not just the mirrors.)
Thanks for the link to the street view.
My suspicion is that his passing the car – WAY too close – might make him less obvious to other road users?
There really is no good reason to be so close you could take the paint off the mirrors as you pass, if there is something coming towards you that means you have to be that close then is an overtake (at speed) really necessary? If there is an empty lane, use it. Move away from the danger of the car you are passing! This might make you more conspicuous to other traffic too.
Hi Sean,
I passed my car test in 1980. I still remember the MSM mantra. It was however followed by PSL – Position – Speed – Look. The car driver presumably did the MSM, the P and the S. It was not looking at the point they committed to the turn that was the cause of the accident. The motorcyclist’s speed was a contributory factor, but had the car driver looked properly, they should have gauged his speed and delayed the turn.
Regards.
Andy.
@Andy:
Except that it is *very* difficult for the human eye to judge the speed of an object heading straight towards it. (This is the same reason some people misjudge train distances at level crossings, with similarly fatal consequences.)
Why would the driver of the car expect any oncoming vehicle to be doing almost 100 mph, down a damp road with a national speed limit of 60? That’s a full 37 mph faster than it should be going. Last time I checked, the Manx TT wasn’t held in Norfolk.
(Yes, yes, I know, people should drive according to the prevailing conditions. Unfortunately, the motorcycle’s rider clearly never got that memo. The helmet-cam footage clearly shows a damp road. That means spray and reflections too.)
When investigating air or rail accidents, the investigating team invariably reports on a ‘cascade’ of events that led to the accident. Had the right decision been made at each point, the accident could have been averted. However, there’s invariably an ‘initiating’ event—a fundamental flaw, error, or misjudgement—that triggers the cascade in the first place.
In this case, the initiating event was the rider’s decision to go some 37 mph above the national speed limit on a damp, east-west road. Those two conditions alone were already a problem given the known issues with human perception and cognition.
The driver clearly assumed there was no immediate danger and their manoeuvre could go ahead. Their information was inaccurate, but that’s the problem with relying on fallible humans to provide your system’s “failsafe” layer: we’re fallible. Accidents usually occur because one humans’ fallibility turned out to be mutually exclusive with that of another human.
Had the motorcycle been doing a more sensible speed at the time, the accident would not have happened. Ergo, the rider’s recklessness was the primary cause of his own death. That he hit a car instead of a tree is a contributing event, but not the initiating event.
Hello Sean,
Thanks for replying.
I agree with the point regarding the difficulty of judging speed when viewing straight on or at an acute angle, and I noted that the motorcyclist’s speed was a contributory factor, however before taking another person’s lane, you need to be certain.
The driver clearly thought he was certain, but tragically misjudged.
How do you know that speed was the primary cause? Neither of us has any idea how attentive or inattentive the car driver may have been? Was the driver distracted? We only have a media report to go by. I’m afraid you can’t claim to know what the initiating event is without all the facts. The driver could have has a headache, or was late for an appointment, or had a row at home. Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t.
The only fact we have is that the car crossed the path of another vehicle.
The additional point of a successful prosecution by those in possession of more details than we have, would indicate more culpability on behalf of the driver.
We are all human, and I never claimed MSM-PSL was infallible – merely a guide I was taught. In this instance the ‘look’ part was where it fell down.
The underlying factors were the motorcyclists speed and the failure of the car driver to see him. The accident was caused by the vehicle turning across oncoming traffic.
I maintain my point that the driver not looking adequately caused the accident, with rider speed as a contributory factor (which aligns with your point about acute angles and ability to judge speed).
I’m not attempting to remove blame from the motorcyclist, he did contribute to his own demise, his speed was reckless, and he clearly had no regard for any other road users. He had no right to expect to be seen at that speed and should have adjusted it accordingly. However, neither can we absolve the driver merely because the rider was speeding excessively.
Your point about a tree has no bearing on this accident – the motorcyclist never lost control of his motorcycle and crashed into a tree – him hitting a vehicle crossing his lane caused the accident.
Regards.
Andy.
While this discussion is fascinating in itself, there is a fact both of you appear to have missed. The driver of the Clio admitted to the police that he did not see the bike, nor the car it had just overtaken, yet the driver behind him saw both. Consequently, the judgement of speed becomes moot – he didn’t look properly. That was the root cause of the accident. The failure of the rider to anticipate a driver not acting in accordance with the priority arrangements at the junction so not regulating his speed accordingly was a secondary cause.
Hi LR,
Both missing?
The point I’ve been trying to make is that the cause of the accident was the car driver not looking (or indeed ‘not seeing’) – the ‘look’ part of Mirror Signal Manoeuvre Position Speed Look, and that the rider speed was a contributory not primary cause.
I also raised the point that the driver could have been inattentive.
“The underlying factors were the motorcyclists speed and the failure of the car driver to see him. The accident was caused by the vehicle turning across oncoming traffic.
I maintain my point that the driver not looking adequately caused the accident, with rider speed as a contributory factor”
Your reply concurs with my view.
Doesn’t it?
Regards.
Andy.
The bit you both appeared to be missing was that the driver confessed to not looking properly. It was a done deal on that score. There was no “could” have been inattentive – he admitted that he was. That’s why he was rightly prosecuted.
LR,
Thanks for the confirmation of the prosecution evidence.
Sean’s initial post was based on the video only. I limited my responses to the video evidence only (as indeed would the vast majority of us – this item has generated a lot of comment amongst my colleagues and others – all of whom reference the video only).
The reason for my response being as such on this post is that this video release is what most people would base their opinion on. My point was that it isn’t easy to just say ‘the rider was reckless – he had it coming’ – as some have said.
The only evidential fact on the video was excessive speed and that the car driver took the motorcyclists lane – leading to the conclusion that he didn’t look properly, and my defence of MSM-PSL, which I believe works well.
On the video only, the driver was at fault, with the rider’s speed contributory.
I commented that the driver was prosecuted by those who knew more.
I didn’t dig further for this reason.
Regards.
Andy.
“If there is an empty lane, use it. Move away from the danger of the car you are passing! This might make you more conspicuous to other traffic too.”
One of the first things that I was picked up on when doing advanced motorcycle training was being too close to the vehicle that I was overtaking. Not much later I was overtaking a car that decided to pull out and overtake the car in front while I was alongside him. Being well over to the right, it was very easy for me to squirt on a bit more gas and get out of his way. Had I been doing it the way that I used to I would probably have been knocked off.
Smoking Scot – It seems churlish to quibble in the circumstances, but the bike he was riding on the day he crashed wasn’t an RGV250. If you haven’t seen the video, look at the clocks – that (as confirmed by googling a couple of news reports), was a Yam FJR1300, so all your comments in relation to his RGV and the way he was riding it are somewhat wide of the mark.
I express my condolences to the biker’s family and, whilst he made a fatal error (too) to the car driver.
“We share the roads with imbeciles who really shouldn’t have a driving licence.”
Twas ever thus. Many car drivers don’t even look, or look straight through you even if you’re driving a full sized car. Bicycle or motorcycle, you need the reflexes of a greased Mongoose on hot glass to avoid these morons. Paranoia must be constantly engaged in order to retain one’s breathing habit and no claims.
While driving in the UK recently, I found it quite routine when approaching a junction at legal speed to have some attention deficient cretin pull across the road / right turn without looking in front of me requiring rapid application of brakes on my part. And I was driving a largish hire car FFS!
It’s enough to make you go out and buy one of these. Although I wouldn’t dump it in a pond afterwards – just reload. 😈
Nah
Roof-mounted Laser cannon, connected to driver’s HUD, I think…..
“We have no way of telling which is which until a situation develops. Consequently, we have to assume the worst and have a plan B in place when we cross their paths. This is riding defensively. I take the view that defensive riding should be the first line of defence, not the last.”
Quite. Having driven in Kuwait, Russia, and Nigeria for a total of 7 years, this is precisely what I did having been taught just that in defensive driving courses. “Let the idiot go” is one of the slogans they use, meaning get out of his way and let him kill himself. But it’s exactly that: expect the worst to happen, regardless of rights and wrongs, all the time which generally means drive slowly and be prepared to hit the brakes at any moment. Saved me a crash or two.
“And that, frankly, is the definition of a safe speed. Nothing to do with arbitrary speed limits imposed by myopic, politically motivated, anti-motorist local authorities; can I stop in what I can see to be clear? If the answer is “yes” then it is a safe speed.”
This too. I sometimes drive silly speeds here in France, when the roads are clear and I have a good few hundred metres of visibility in front of me. Short of a meteor strike, I am confident nothing will leap out and surprise me. But when traffic is heavy I ease up a lot, and keep a good distance, because anything can happen. I’ve gotten into a habit of finding myself a consistent, responsible driver in a car in front of me who is going at roughly the same speed I want to, and tucking in behind him/her for miles.
The worst thing here in France is the scooters on the peripherique. They overtake on the inside a lot, coming out of nowhere, and I’ve had a few near misses when I’ve gone to move back inside a lane and a scooter has shot past on the inside. It’s pretty stupid because even though I check my mirrors for some reason I don’t see them. I never have this problem with them coming up on the outside.