Slo-mo bike/motorcycle collision

NITR8s

Why does the sound of everything in slow motion make things funny? Also he wasnt a real cyclist, if he was he would have been straight up checking out his bike for damage and then kicking the s%*t out of the motorcyclist for wrecking his wheels.

Seriously though I am just glad everyone was ok, but I did shed a tear for those dura ace wheels.

AchillesLeftKnee

Oooh dear. Hope no-one was properly hurt there. Spot on with the target fixation there DIY. Lead with the eyes n' head and the rest will follow...

Paul 8v

Watching this with no sound so I can't work out why the motorcyclist is just standing over him looking at him? That is piss poor riding, poor guys.

diy

Looking at the other videos on the channel, you can see this is a fairly tight, decreasing radius, off camber bend. It seems to be a bit of an accident spot.

TheSmithers

There seems to be a lot of analysis of how the motorcyclist may have gone wrong in terms of his line through the corner, throttle, braking etc, but most seem oblivious to the obvious. He was going too f**king fast! Tw4t! I'm pretty sure those unlucky cyclists weren't the first the biker would have come across going up that road. He should have used some common sense and anticipated what may have been up ahead. Had he been riding sensibly, the whole thing could have been avoided. If I were one of the cyclists I don't think I'd have been as lenient.

TheSmithers

declan1 wrote:

I don't blame the biker at all for the accident; I can completely understand how it happened - as long as he said sorry afterwards!

OMFG! I thank God that people with your mentality are a minority, otherwise road cyclists really would be risking their lives.

Bobbinogs

TheSmithers wrote:

declan1 wrote:

I don't blame the biker at all for the accident; I can completely understand how it happened - as long as he said sorry afterwards!

OMFG! I thank God that people with your mentality are a minority, otherwise road cyclists really would be risking their lives.

I must admit that I thought declan1's comments were written with [ironic] [/ironic] font, which doesn't often work on 'tinternet or in email (as I have previously found to my cost).

TheSmithers

If that's the case, of course I apologise. I guess the "saying sorry" bit should also have been a giveaway.

Whenever I see cyclists involved in accidents like that though, it does disturb me. It could happen to any of us. In this particular case, how anyone could go into detail about lines, braking, throttle and completely neglect the only reason it happened (i.e. excessive speed), is quite beyond me. I'm just glad in this case that there were no serious injuries and that the guy can ride another day.

herb71

TheSmithers wrote:

There seems to be a lot of analysis of how the motorcyclist may have gone wrong in terms of his line through the corner, throttle, braking etc, but most seem oblivious to the obvious. He was going too f**king fast! Tw4t!

But he wasn't going very fast, thats why the focus on line etc. Perhaps you could argue he was going faster than his abilities allowed which is a slightly different point.

Obviously the biker is 100% to blame, and trying to understand what he did wrong in no way mitigates the biker from blame. There were so many points in that bend at which a small action would have changed the outcome.

I also think people are incorrect with some of the comments about steering a m'bike on zero throttle. A motorbike will turn on zero throttle, even when pretty hard on the brakes, given the correct input to the bars (remember the countersteering thread). Being able to handle the bike in this way is something that only comes with training and experience as its not necessarily an intuitive action.

I suspect also, that knowledge of being filmed was a contributing factor to the biker exceeding his abilities.

navrig

The biker was in the wrong 100% however the camera position and angle do not tell the whole picture.

This appears to be the road (look at it in satellite mode). I can see why it is popular for bikers and cyclists.

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-Address&q=mulholland+highway+california&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45921128,d.d2k&biw=1229&bih=841&wrapid=tlif136744155885110&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&sa=N&tab=wl&authuser=0

A very tight uphill bend with the bike on the outside of the bend makes it a technically difficult turn. He was going too fast and, in my mind, was relying on the braking effect of closing the throttle and letting the engine and gravity slow the bike. He may even of pulled in the clutch level meaning that he didn't even have engine breaking.

However he had the option of running very wide and still being protected by the crash barrier, The fact that they he didn't do this supports the view that he couldn't change direction because of the bike dynamics - close throttle, partially compressed front forks etc. Add to that target fixation......

Given the number of video clips on YouTube showing crashes at that location I am surprised that the authorities don't do something about it. Perhaps the insurance companies should exclude riding on Mulholland Highway from their cover!

NITR8s

The insurance company will not pay out, they will claim that he was racing which his insurance will not cover him for. Even if he had race cover it wouldnt be accepted on the open highway.

Points to suggest he was racing.
1) Being videoed and obviously aware of this.
2) Speed to which he was traveling.
3) Choice of location, known hotspot for motorcycle racing.

Also it was clear that he was arrested from watching the video as a police officer loaded the bike onto the lowloader. (it was clearly going to the police inpound.

TheSmithers

Herb71 wrote:

TheSmithers wrote:

There seems to be a lot of analysis of how the motorcyclist may have gone wrong in terms of his line through the corner, throttle, braking etc, but most seem oblivious to the obvious. He was going too f**king fast! Tw4t!

But he wasn't going very fast, thats why the focus on line etc. Perhaps you could argue he was going faster than his abilities allowed which is a slightly different point.

No different in my mind. Whether he was going too fast, or faster than his abilities allowed, he was going too fast.

diy

TheSmithers wrote:

No different in my mind. Whether he was going too fast, or faster than his abilities allowed, he was going too fast.

Interesting, because when I read your first comment, I was curious as to if you meant too fast for his ability, which is still questionable. But the fact that you say there is no difference suggest you may not have properly considered it with the benefit of knowledge. Consider this:

Setting his skill/reactions aside:
- Was there sufficient space/time to stop given the distance he could see to be clear? Yes
- Could he have avoided the accident at higher speed? Yes
- If he had been less skillful than he was, would riding slower have changed anything? No

Not sure how excess speed is a factor here?

What we have here is a rider who did the wrong thing. Imagine going along on your bike at 15mph and braking hard with the front while turning a bend on a damp road, causing the front to slide under. Would that be riding too fast?

NITR8s wrote:

The insurance company will not pay out, they will claim that he was racing which his insurance will not cover him for.

I don't know about Californian Insurances, but in the UK he would have been covered from a 3rd party perspective. They may have taken him to the cleaners, but they would pay out to any injured 3rd party. In the event he is uninsured its covered by the MIB : http://www.mib.org.uk

herb71

Navrig wrote:

This appears to be the road (look at it in satellite mode). I can see why it is popular for bikers and cyclists.

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-Address&q=mulholland+highway+california&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45921128,d.d2k&biw=1229&bih=841&wrapid=tlif136744155885110&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&sa=N&tab=wl&authuser=0

Looks like a fantastic playground!!

bompington

Target fixation? Isn't that a euphemism for "not watching where you're going"?

If you can't change its direction to avoid an obstacle by a foot or so on either side, it's not a vehicle, it's a projectile.

herb71

bompington wrote:

Target fixation? Isn't that a euphemism for "not watching where you're going"?

If you can't change its direction to avoid an obstacle by a foot or so on either side, it's not a vehicle, it's a projectile.

He was watching exactly where he was going! He should have been watching where he wanted to go.

navrig

bompington wrote:

Target fixation? Isn't that a euphemism for "not watching where you're going"?

If you can't change its direction to avoid an obstacle by a foot or so on either side, it's not a vehicle, it's a projectile.

No.

Herb71 wrote:

He was watching exactly where he was going! He should have been watching where he wanted to go.

Yes

herb71

On the subject of 'target fixation'. I once read that we are effectively programmed to keep the centre of our vision focused on whatever object could be a possible danger. In the distant past that may well have been something that wanted to kill or eat us, so you never took your eyes off it. We are not really that well adapted to driving / riding at speed.

I have been riding motorbikes for nigh on 25 years. Even now it takes a conscious effort to look away from whatever hazard is there in front of me, and look past it up the road to where you want to go. Its a skill you have to keep practising and it applies to bicycles too. How many of us have been flying downhill focusing on that tree or drystone wall on the outside of an upcoming bend thinking 'that looks painful'.

TheSmithers

diy wrote:

TheSmithers wrote:

No different in my mind. Whether he was going too fast, or faster than his abilities allowed, he was going too fast.

Interesting, because when I read your first comment, I was curious as to if you meant too fast for his ability, which is still questionable. But the fact that you say there is no difference suggest you may not have properly considered it with the benefit of knowledge.

I originally meant that he was travelling too fast to be able to avoid hitting that cyclist, regardless of his ability. His ability was not even a consideration. Whether going too fast for one's ability, or otherwise, the potential outcome is the same i.e. loss of control and/or an accident.

diy wrote:

Setting his skill/reactions aside:
- Was there sufficient space/time to stop given the distance he could see to be clear? Yes
- Could he have avoided the accident at higher speed? Yes
- If he had been less skillful than he was, would riding slower have changed anything? No

On what do you base these assumptions, particularly 2 and 3?

diy wrote:

Imagine going along on your bike at 15mph and braking hard with the front while turning a bend on a damp road, causing the front to slide under. Would that be riding too fast?

Errr, yes! Too fast for the conditions clearly; I'm having to brake hard, while turning on a damp road.

My mind boggles that you can suggest that excess speed was not a factor in this accident, and that I haven't considered things properly. Just watching that video once told me all I need to know. I admit I'm not a motorcyclist, and have no idea of the physics of riding and cornering a motorcycle at speed. Maybe he could have avoided it by other means, skills, techniques, as has been explored in this thread, but the fact remains, it would not have been necessary had he not been travelling at that speed in the first place. Had he used his judgement, exercised due care and attention and anticipated what could have been around the corner like all competent motorcyclists, the whole thing could have been avoided.

TheSmithers

Clearly, you are a motorcyclist then, diy. I kind of figured as you seem to have had a lot of technical input into this debate.

I've absolutely no doubt that had YOU been the rider of that motorcycle, maybe the accident would have been avoided. You obviously have the skills and experience to do what would needed to have been done in order to avoid that situation. So you're bound to say that speed was not a factor because you're basing things on your own skills and what you would have done. I still say it is very much a factor, because imo you shouldn't need to rely on skillful riding to avoid hitting a cyclist. If you do, then you're going too fast.

hatch87

The thing is, it doesn't look like he was going very fast at all, the Motorbike didn't travel very far after the collision, in fact the water bottle over took it! If he was going fast the bike would of been all over the place rather than just rolling another 10 meters and falling over.

It seems more likely he was looking half a mile down the road, possibly planning a massive wheelie for youtube. Either way he was in the wrong, oh an ouch

diy

TheSmithers wrote:

Clearly, you are a motorcyclist then, diy. I kind of figured as you seem to have had a lot of technical input into this debate.

Yes - I used to be an advanced motorcycle instructor (not the day job). I did quite a bit of work with various establishments (police, IAM etc). Firstly I'm not sympathetic to the biker. He like many is clearly too focused on learning to get his knee down before he has learned to read a road and understand the basics of a driving/riding plan. But to answer your questions:

Lets take the very first point at which he spotted the cyclists. He opts to slow down, he closes the throttle and later (too late) brakes. Had he kept on the gas or even accelerated, his rear wheel would have driven the bike around a tighter radius. He would have gone faster, had more control and if he looked where he wanted to go and stayed relaxed he would have missed the cyclists.

Lets take the second scenario, imagine he is 5-10mph slower, the same actions with the throttle/brake would have caused the same result. He may have hit the cyclists at a lower speed, but the exact same dynamics are at play albeit with less energy.

Put him on the correct line, in the right gear with the correct throttle and he has the option of stopping, riding around them, slowing right down and giving them lots or room and a wave.

By the way this is all part of the current UK learner test, so its not exactly advanced or skillful.

southdownswolf

I always used to get into trouble as a runner because of "Target Fixaton". It's not my fault there were so many nice ladies in front of me...

♠ChumBucket♠

What a total plonker!

IMO he just didn't see the cyclists until it was too late, nothing to do with rolling off the throttle as by the time he DID roll off the gas it was WAY too late to change anything, let alone direction! He actually accelerated just before hitting them. Bad riding, total lack of concentration & awareness of surroundings! I had one of those bikes (SV650) although the "S" version (faired) they are not a difficult bike to ride & I can only assume this guy is very inexperienced. :roll:

proto

In some photos of the aftermath of the incident, George Hincapie is sitting on his bike just chilling out and nattering to the other cyclists. Not sure he's there but pretty cool imo!

diy

SV650s are very popular with novice riders. Cheap to insure, not too powerful (about 75hp) I've never ridden one personally - been on the SV1000, and that is a nice easy bike to ride too. Engine braking is a bit more noticeable than on an equiv. 4 or 3 cylinder bike.

Take another look at the vid - you see movement in the right hand as he closes the throttle a fraction, as you will know from riding a twin, 2mm on the throttle is all it takes. He then brakes 2 seconds before impact.

The bit that bothers me is how quickly cycle clothing disintegrates when in contact with tarmac. I wonder if something can't be done there from a design manufacturing point of view. Surely it must be possible to build some basic abrasion resistance in without affecting performance?

♠ChumBucket♠

diy wrote:

SV650s are very popular with novice riders. Cheap to insure, not too powerful (about 75hp) I've never ridden one personally - been on the SV1000, and that is a nice easy bike to ride too. Engine braking is a bit more noticeable than on an equiv. 4 or 3 cylinder bike.

Take another look at the vid - you see movement in the right hand as he closes the throttle a fraction, as you will know from riding a twin, 2mm on the throttle is all it takes. He then brakes 2 seconds before impact.

The bit that bothers me is how quickly cycle clothing disintegrates when in contact with tarmac. I wonder if something can't be done there from a design manufacturing point of view. Surely it must be possible to build some basic abrasion resistance in without affecting performance?

Yes, engine braking is much more severe with the V twin. However, there is still nothing this guy could have done by the time he rolled off/braked- any action from this point would be ineffective regardless of anything. The best he could have done is ride round the side of them on the dirt. I truly believe this guy did not even know they were there until it was too late!! I reckon he's looking further up the road as he gently accelerates out of the bend & by the time he realises he's going too wide it's too late.

diy

Being on the wrong line on an off camber bend would have made it harder, but he had at least 5 seconds from first reaction to crash. IMO that is more than enough to make the minor adjustments needed to go around them on the inside. Even At a basic level I'd say he may have had just enought time to come to a complete stop.
The key check is how far he travelled further from the point he started to slow down to the impact.
If we put his speed at about 50mph and if he then had 40m from the point of reaction then its fair to say he could have stopped.

♠ChumBucket♠

...