Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Motorcycle going "an outrageous speed"

Discussion in 'General Motorcycling Discussion' started by Justus, Aug 15, 2007.

  1. Motorcycle going "an outrageous speed"

    Kate Uebergang
    August 15, 2007 12:00am

    A MOTORCYCLIST was travelling up to 147km/h when he hit a
    car and killed a woman, a jury heard yesterday.

    Phirum Uch De Montero, 27, was driving his Suzuki motorcycle at "an
    outrageous speed"
    in an 80km/h zone moments before the horrific
    accident that killed Sarah Cates, 24, the County Court was told.

    Prosecutor Nick Papas told the jury witnesses said the motorcyclist was
    revving his engine and accelerating heavily before pulling out of a
    side-street and hitting the Commodore.

    The court heard that the car spun and flipped, and Ms Cates received
    fatalhead and internal injuries.

    Mr De Montero, of Noble Park, has pleaded not guilty to one count of
    culpable driving causing death over the accident on November 17, 2004.

    Ms Cates, a receptionist at BMW Group Australia, was being driven home
    from work by her boyfriend, Robert Matthews, when their car was hit in
    Springvale Rd, Mulgrave, about 5.15pm.

    Mr Papas said the motorcyclist ended up wedged by his helmet under-
    neath the car.

    He said a police expert in accident reconstruction would give evidence the
    motorcycle was travelling at up to 147km/h when it struck the Commodore.

    He said there would have been no collision if Mr De Montero had not been

    Mr De Montero's lawyer, Bruce Nibbs, said the defence would call an
    expert who would give evidence Mr De Montero's maximum speed was

    "What you have is a combination of factors . . . part of it is my client's speed,
    but that isn't the only part of it,"
    he said.

    Mr Nibbs urged the jury to put emotions aside, saying, "My client also suffered
    life-threatening injures"

    The trial continues before Judge Stuart Campbell.

  2. ftw? i have seen some faairly extensive damage done to cages by bikes, but the bike caused the car to spin and flip? definately something else involved there
  3. wow - another waste of time.

    The guy on the bike was stupid (>20 over the limit in both defense and prosecution) and he killed someone. Lock him up and get on with yer lives.
  4. Yes, but road laws are not judged against a 'stupidity' test. Obviously the rider was, as you say, very stupid and a statistic waiting to happen... once you're more than a certain amount over the limit you simply can't expect a driver displaying due care to see you in time, let alone drive on the assumption that you're doing Mach 5. Too many inexperienced riders think that they will be given right of way and a driver will be able to quickly appraise their speed. But an 80 zone suggests some 'openness'.

    BUT I dare say the police 'expert's' testimony will be scientifically horseshit, utter opinion-backed-with-a-job-title. I have never seen any of these 'experts' back their ludicrously-precise guesstimates with any sort of reasoned explanation.

    As so often, the court will be invited to choose a villain and a victim, a false dilemma which anyone on a motorcycle can't win.

    But who knows without having been there... or maybe that's my point.
  5. This sounds to me like he was speeding, but then the accident occurred at low speed at an intersection.

    In other news, a driver was speeding last week then hit a car in a parking lot this week. Speeding is seen to be a factor.
  6. Yer, no mention of how fast the car was travelling... Also interesting how experts can work out down to the exact KM/H how fast the bike was going... I imagine that would be pretty tricky with only two tyres to go on. Must have a massive margin of error.
  7. I imagine a physics professor would laugh...
  8. I imagine you might be wrong. There has been lots of research done by police forces around the World, using different techniques to estimate the speed before an accident. Don't jump to your own conclusions. As much that the police can be total shits a lot of the time, it doesn't mean that they are all of the time. Even the guys barrister is saying that his client was doing 103kmh. Assuming he didn't have a black box recorder, that'd be from another export witness representing his client, who would be being paid to use the lower of two figures. If the copper is using the high of two, the truth is going to be somewhere between them both.
  9. ...which averages out to 120 in an 80 or 50% over the limit. I'm no worshipper of speed limits by any means, but they do tell us something about the local conditions.
  10. Any speed well over 80 at 5:15 pm (peak hour) on Springvale Rd is suicide.

  11. It's actually not that massive an error margin.
    Caveat: It does depend on having all the evidence. As soon as a parameter is "guessed" the accuracy is open to challenge.

    They use a variety of factors such as:
    - vehicular mass
    - type of tyres fitted (they have all the manufacturors braking data)
    - road conditions and the roads surface (affects drag)
    - length of skid marks (if any)
    - damage to the other vehicle (motor accidents) or the distance from impact that a body flies (pedestrian accidents)
    - as well as injuries to the body (Pedestrian accidents).

    Punch this lot into a computer with the right software, and they can calculate the speed at impact.
    I would hazard an (educated) guess that they didn't have all the evidence. If it isn't a fatal, they don't tend to close the road (necessary to do all measurements) so some parameters are guessed. I'd also agree that a bike is not going to tip a car over on it's own, there were other factors at work.
  12. Cejay, I am always happy to be persuaded by EVIDENCE. As opposed to impressive-sounding job titles. It's always a bit futile to argue about individual cases, and I suppose I haven't dragged myself through university libraries, but, seriously, how could they possibly tell the rider's peak speed given the dozens of variables? Commonsense suggests he was probably going awfully fast but courts pretend to rely on evidence and facts.
  13. And I don't doubt that the police officers word will not simply be taken as gospel. It will be challenged by the barrister for the accused who, will in their turn, present an expert witness using the same fundamental calculations to prove their client was only doing 103kmh. It is the way of the system of law practiced in this country. The jury will then decide, based on the two versions of evidence who they believe to be the more credible.
  14. My question would be what exactly were Ms Cates and her boyfriend doing in the car at the time that resulted in her receiving fatal head? :LOL:

    Yes in poor taste I know, but that's a poorly constructed sentence :p
  15. Trust me the output from the program I mentioned above is (and has been tested often enough) to be relied on (allowing the error margin) as evidence.
    Now is also a good time to clear up a fallacy. There is no "beyond reasonable doubt" legally in Aust. The test is "could there be any other reasonable explanation based on this evidence?". If not, the case is proved.

    Simple physics can (and will) give you the terminal velocity of a body striking another body. I outlined the parameters above.
  16. I think this is what it comes down to.
    I mean blast around at 2 in the morning on roads with no entries at whatever speed. But peak hour on a major arterial with lots of really busy intersections is not the time or place for it.
    seriosly the fact that he is alive to be charged is a miracle in and of its self. But had he died you could prety much trump it up to natural selection at work and leave it at that.
  17. Natural selection is all good and well, until it starts bringing in collateral...

    Sad for anyone to die in order to learn a lesson.
  18. We had one of these recently, just around the corner from work.

    Car turned in front of bike, car hit passenger side of car. There was enough force to cave the side of the car into the middle and flip it on it's side. If there was a pasenger I have no doubt they wouldn't have made it, rider was killed immediately.
    Police report estimated the bike's speed to be about 160kmh in a 60kmh zone (official report)

    I saw the aftermath, the bike and car were still there and I had to go past to get to work, a very sobering thing to see :(
  19. Very true
  20. Simple conservation of momentum really. The bike must've impacted the car pretty much side-on, and in the middle (i.e classic T-bone) given that the passenger was tragically killed.

    A 1600kg car (including occupants) being hit by a 200kg motorcycle, means a 8:1 mass ratio. If the bike hit the car at 140kph, the car would start moving sideways at around 18kph.

    As for speculation as to whether an 18kph sideways push would be enough to spin and flip a car, I'll leave that one to the hoons to answer.