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.

Motorcyclist dies in crash

Discussion in 'General Motorcycling Discussion' started by scooter, Feb 13, 2006.

  1. Motorcyclist dies in crash

    February 13, 2006

    A 37-YEAR-OLD Mortlake man was killed in a motorcycle crash on the Hamilton Highway last night.

    The man was riding with a group of motorcyclists from Mortlake when the accident happened at 6.05pm, about 6km east of Caramut. Senior Constable Greg Cressall, of Warrnambool police, said the man was attempting to overtake another

    motorcyclist on a left-hand bend when his bike left the road and he collided with a fence.

    Senior Constable Cressall said a member of the group called an ambulance immediately but the man had received fatal injuries. Rural Ambulance Victoria spokesman John Mullen said paramedics were called but the man was dead when they

    The man's death took Victoria's road toll to 32.
  2. ................................................
    :( :( :( :( :( :(

    This sucks
  3. Eurgh!...such a sad thing when anyone dies doing something as simple going around a corner. (assuming no-one was being stupid)

    If we motorcyclist don't stop getting maimed or dying we will appear on the goverments radar (again), and MORE regulations will be forthcoming - solving nothing of course. eurgh!
  4. This just makes it worse. :(
    Like it's not dangerous enough out there with all these bad drivers, we now have to add the extra challenge of drink riding?

    I've been done for drink driving before in 02' and lost my licence for 14 months.
    I was dumb and I got caught..... I'm glad I did cos, I could well have killed someone and am surprised I didn't given the amount of times I did drink drive.
    I can understand why people drink drive cos they are all secure in their cage but I cant understand why people drink ride?

    Anyway, I will say that it is good to go out now and have a beer or two then not drink for a few hours and then drive home (legally) and still see all the booze buses around.
    Well done police people!!!!
  5. And this separate crash in Adelaide

    Two die in collision

    February 12, 2006
    TWO people have died in a high-speed collision between a motorbike and a car in Adelaide's west.

    Police said the motorcycle was travelling "quickly" along Tapleys Hill Road before it collided with a car at the intersection of Ingerson Road at West Beach about 3.45 pm (CDT) yesterday.

    The 21-year-old male motorcyclist died along with a 16-year-old girl from West Beach who was a passenger in the car.

    "It's understood the car tried to change lanes and hit the motorbike," a police spokesman said.

    Major Crash investigators are seeking witnesses to the collision.

    South Australia's road toll stands at 16, six more than at the same time last year.

    They claimed on the Ch10 News last night the bike was seen at speeds up to 160km/h prior to the collision. I'm not going to agree or disagree with that figure except to say the general public aren't very good at judging speed and besides I wasn't there so I cant comment can I.
  6. i have to agree with him here
    its sad to see someone die but if he drink and ride and then im sorry to say that he deserved it
    as harsh it sounds as no one should die over a stupid mistake that SHOULD of not happen
    alcohol just dosnt mix with any motorcar or motor bike not even a little
  7. I saw this on CH10 as well and as someone who sees a lot of crashed bikes and researches what happened I could very confedently say that the bike in question was in very good condition for a 160KPH crash. The ride may well have been having a few blasts at high speed but theres no way that bike had an impact at that kind of speed that the media say it was doing.

    But the thing to remember here is that 2 people died which isnt good not matter what the circumstances were.
  8. Hang on.....you have to undestand the police definition of contributing factors.

    If the rider had ANY alcohol in his system...even if he was under the legal limit....that can still be used as a contributing factor.

    The rider may not have been speeding either...however the rider may have been going faster then the speed "they" determine is a safe cornering speed for that corner on that day in those conditions.

    Therefore, as far as the police are concerned, speed and alcohol were the contributing factors.

    The real truth could be that the rider simply made an error or was baulked by another rider which caused him/her to loose control.....or there may have been sand or gravel or it may have been wet which means that the appropriate speed for the corner was a lot lower then he/she was travelling. He/she may have been doing 70km/h and they reckon that 60km/h was a safe speed. Thus speed is blamed.

    This is the problem with these "statistics". The police are always quick to blame speed or alcohol as THE cause dispite other factors which may have been the more appropriate cause. These contributing factor statistics are then used by researchers from major universities who do studies and make recommendations about future road safety initiatives which either police or politicians "use" as facts. These statistic can then be used to promote speed cameras and enforcement. I believe that these statistics are flawed and that's what needs to be changed to really improve safety.

    That's not sayin that these two factors are not responsible for accidents and they may in fact be a cause for most accidents but the problem is that because a whole list of "contributing factors" can be pulled out of the bag then ofcourse our faithful "speed and alcohol" factors will be used as THE reason dispite what I believe as more appropriate contributing factors as being the cause.

    The police or safety researchers will argue that there are many factors that contribute to accidents. They arue that it's not possible to blame one particular thing. However this sets up a situation where the facts of an accident can be manipulated to show anything they want. This is what I believe needs to be looked at, that is, If the greater percentage of possibility shows that the cause of an accident was one factor then that factor should be used as the cause. Not all this "contributing factor" bullshit.

    If road conditions were a major cause for accidents then don't you reckon they would have to do something to improve roads? However this cost too much money.
    If rider/driver error were the major cause of accidents don't you reckon they would have to teach people to ride/driver better? However this cost too much money as well.

    I'm sorry to hear of this person's death. I personally would rather that accident reports were used to prevent other people from dying on the roads and so I would rather hear an honest reason for the accident. I believe this type of approach would be far more beneficial then the crap they sprout at the moment. This contributing factor bull only seems to justify the methods of enforcement they use that really don't fix the problems.
  9. In Vic they take $50 off you and use that to fix the roads... AND, riders still go out and get killed - in completely different locations to where the roads were repaired. Road conditions are ecrtainly a factor - why not teach/promote "read the road ahead" concepts - that's what I use to keep out of trouble when the road conditions turn to shit suddenly...

    There must be a better solution - other than blaming speed etc.

    You would think that after all these years and all the accident reports/studies, that the police would be able to put something together to explain why riders get killed, other than the bland concepts they keep coming up with....
  10. you get that

    Cheers :cool:
  11. Top post Tack :applause:

    Thanks for reminding us that the media's use of out-of-context police quotes gets the more suggestible types' knickers all twisted.
  12. Great idea and I agree 100%, riders can always book themselves into the various riding courses off their own bat as well.

    My employer put me through an advanced driving course and I went into it thinking it would be a waste of time (misspent youth hooning around and some race track exposure) but I certainly came away from it understanding how my then work vehicle handled certain emergency situations.

    Mind you, we all felt sorry for the guy who turned up in a fully loaded Hiace Van :shock:

    Oh, back to my original post, in the quick look in the Ch10 report I didn't think it was a 100mph prang either hence the disclaimer of sorts in the last paragraph.
  13. <shakes head> That's scary. I can't understand it at all. I just find it hard to imagine how anyone could feel safe when getting in a car after a lot of drinks. I'm glad you have learnt from your mistake. We all make mistakes but to go the extra step and learn from them shows an intelligence that unfortunately a lot of people don't seem to have.
  14. Yes but from memory that road ranges from 60 to 70kph. If people think he was doing 160 then maybe he was doing 100, likely more. So a safe bet is that he was doing at least 30 over the limit on a very busy public road. You don't wish harm to anyone, but honestly, this is just plain f%^&en stupidity and I don't have any sympathy for him. I have utmost sympathy for the person he killed, her family and friends and the rider's family and friends who have to deal with the aftermath. And also the cops and ambos who have to deal with the carnage that this sort of stupidity causes every day.

    And if the car was at fault by pulling into the rider's lane, then at what point do we say that the bike was going too fast to be able to be reasonably seen by the driver before chaning lanes? I ask this because where I am at the moment, there is often up to 100kph difference between vehicles in adjacent lanes(no s hit, some do 200 in a 100) on the freeway and you have to look at least 200m back for cars catching you before changing lanes. How far back should the driver have looked, reasonably expecting a bike in the other lane to be doing the speed limit, before moving over. If the bike was doing 160 then the driver can't really be blamed for making an error like that.
  15. Whatever the contributing factors are in this instance the bloke has died from making some mistakes. and the bottomn line is that sucks.
  16. What one? The Mortlake one is still an unknown, but the SA one there was a passenger fatality too.

    Death just sucks full stop.

    Take care all...