http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2752691/Harry-crash-drama-Prince-s-shock-motorobike-outrider-smashes-head-taxi.html

 

 

 

Looking at the photo of the telescoping of the motorcycle frame, I'd say the outrider was very, very lucky.

 

Says something about the NCAP - rating of the Prius.

 

 

 

Nick

Edited 12 September, 201411 yr by Clunkclick

Looks from the CCTV to be the fault of the Prius driver - he appears to have pulled out without making sure that the road was clear enough to complete his manoeuvre before the convoy reached the junction as he is still over the white line when the impact happens

 

Thankfully all appear to have survived without serious injury luckily.

Looks from the CCTV to be the fault of the Prius driver - he appears to have pulled out without making sure that the road was clear enough to complete his manoeuvre before the convoy reached the junction as he is still over the white line when the impact happens

 

Thankfully all appear to have survived without serious injury luckily.

I don't know though. Looks to me as if the Prius driver signalled correctly (Many of them  thinks its ultra |"Cool" not to bother down here )"Squeezed-out" between a gap in traffic on a busy road. It also looks as if he  had more or less completed the turn before he was hit and that the outrider was on the wrong side of the road because he was trying to overtake a white saloon.

 

Right-turns ! Primary cause of accidents. IMHO, they should be banned in central London. Given the statistics for right turn accidents, there should be a advertising campaign along the lines, "Before you turn right, DOUBLETAKE".

 

When I've seen a Royal motorcade in the past, they used to have at least one or two outriders who went ahead of the main convoy, so as to marshall traffic at major junctions. But this was a minor junction, so no chance.

 

Nick

Edited 12 September, 201411 yr by Clunkclick

Seems rather strange that the biker gets discharged first and the driver was unconcious and had to be cut out, but as above it'll probably be the car drivers fault. The cop might have had time to stand up on the pegs so avoiding the upper leg/pelvic injuries that are common when a bike hits a car when the riders legs and nuts hit the tank/bars so he was lucky but will have some paperwork to fill in!

I am biased but will always blame the prius driver, staple car of transport for london minicabs. Their standard of driving is the lowest out of all the vehicles I see in london while driving about.

Being serious I hope both fully recover from their injuries.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2752691/Harry-crash-drama-Prince-s-shock-motorobike-outrider-smashes-head-taxi.html

 

 

 

Looking at the photo of the telescoping of the motorcycle frame, I'd say the outrider was very, very lucky.

 

Says something about the NCAP - rating of the Prius.

 

 

 

Nick

 

That (not) new worthy article certainly contains some facts. However, I'm struggling to keep my head above the level of bile and bushwah! that forms the most of it.

 

Hope the MCR is OK and also the Prius driver. Would assume CCTV or similar got the lot on filum.....

Again, the Prius driver is being blamed - but is it actually, totally[ his fault - or a very human failing we all have?   

The threads on this forum "Looking Out For Each Other" and "What Can An RAF Pilot Teach Us?" both show just how easy it is for a vehicle driver to fail to spot a motorcycle - the motorcycling world even has a nickname for this type of accident - the "SMIDSY" ("Sorry Mate, I Didn't See You!")

I am not apportioning blame but I have noticed a very marked deterioration in police driving/riding standards over the past 25 years which probably correlates to the cutting of funding for adequate training.   Police driving training used to be carried out centrally at Hendon until the late 1970's (was it Thatcher's government cutting costs and cutting corners? ....oh surely not!)   For sure, fatal RTA's involving police vehicles has dropped in the last 5 years or so but a large part of that is due to improved vehicle safety features such as air bags, ABS etc.   Contrary to urban legend, the "blue lights" do not give the emergency services the automatic right to drive on the wrong carriageway, exceed speed limits or pass red traffic lights - the key is "if it is safe and practical to do so."

 

Prince Harry is, arguably, one of the most popular members of the Royal Family and, like his dearly loved mother, has a very big, humanitarian heart.   Even the anti-monarchists seem to have no axes to grind with Harry!   Does he really need this level of protection - even more bizarre when you consider his acquired skills as a fully combative serving soldier?    Do the police bodyguards accompany him on his military service - do they buzzcocks!

Of course the Prius driver will end up facing the music here, but, psychologically, it may not be entirely his fault.

Edited 13 September, 201411 yr by bealine

Looks from the CCTV to be the fault of the Prius driver - he appears to have pulled out without making sure that the road was clear enough to complete his manoeuvre before the convoy reached the junction as he is still over the white line when the impact happens

 

Thankfully all appear to have survived without serious injury luckily.

 

I'm guessing speed of the motorcyclist could well be a factor. I don't think he'd have done that much damage to the car hitting it at 30mph.

 

Don't get me wrong, I ride a bike myself, but I've nearly been on the receiving end of this sort of thing pulling out of a junction in a van. Look right, clear. Look left, clear. Look right as pulling out and a Power Ranger has suddenly appeared. 

MC is a solid lump of metal and hit well forward on the Prius. Could easily have been 30-40 MPH only. Have seen older cars T boned by MCs. The result is usually not pretty.

 

In the "death ride" video the other day, what made me shudder was how quickly the biker "stopped" after hitting the car. Given his speed that had to indicate something very traumatic. It's not the speed of bouncing down the road that kills, it's the bloody lampposts etc....

I don't understand why theses bikes are not made hi viz like a normal police bike. Theses things just blend in.

I don't understand why theses bikes are not made hi viz like a normal police bike. Theses things just blend in.

It wouldn't matter if it was accompanied by a 21 gun salute and a carnival with juggling

monkeys smoking cigars. If it's a bike then some car drivers will still find a way to not see it. 

I think it's partly the assumption that nothing could possibly be THAT much faster than a car.

So they fail to even look for something that  actually is...

 

What I don't understand is why car drivers need extra help spotting a vehicle with flashing 

blue lights, ridden by a guy with a whistle who happens to be a Police trained escort rider wearing Hi Viz. 

It doesn't matter if he was whitelining, the Prius driver (who is clearly after a good old fashioned

claim up, and is allegedly a professional driver) should have definitely seen him.  

I'd feign unconsciousness if I'd knocked a copper off of his motorbike too...

Or perhaps the airbag knocked him out....? 

By the looks of the picture, it wasn't just one airbag that went off, looks like he for the full instant bouncy castle effect from it being a corner impact, so it's not inconceivable he got knocked out.

MC is a solid lump of metal and hit well forward on the Prius. Could easily have been 30-40 MPH only. Have seen older cars T boned by MCs. The result is usually not pretty.

 

In the "death ride" video the other day, what made me shudder was how quickly the biker "stopped" after hitting the car. Given his speed that had to indicate something very traumatic. It's not the speed of bouncing down the road that kills, it's the bloody lampposts etc....

I've  Tee-boned (On my motorbike) the nearside of a saloon car doing a right-turn across my track at a set of traffic lights. I was doing 30-35. It didn't do anything like the damage in this case, but the kinectic energy was sufficient to shoot me 30 feet into the opposing carriageway, leaving the bike at rest beside the car. The deceleration is very quick in this sort of accident. Additionally, there may be elements of a closing velocity. So, I would think the energy transfer must be considerable.  Ok the bike I was riding was a 125, it weighed about 200lbs, whereas the bike in this accident is probably nearer the 600lb mark, but even so. He must have been doing 50 at least.

 

The first thing that usually happens when you emergency brake on a motorcycle is that the rear wheel locks up and the whole back - end swivels round and you "Dirt-track" into the object you are trying to avoid. That's what happened to me. But, this guy seems, not to have braked and to have gone straight in.

 

N

Edited 15 September, 201411 yr by Clunkclick

Really? No offence but that's plain bad riding!

I use about 75% front brake to scrub speed off quickly switching and  bringing the bike to a gentle stop with the rear.

In the emergency stop scenario the weight is shifted quickly onto the front tyre increasing its grip.

That's why proper bikes have twin massive disc brakes at the front and tiny little single ones ones at the rear. 

Rear brake is best used to stabilise the bike when doing low speed manouvres, so you ride with the brake on

a little bit. It works by keeping the chain taut thus removing transmission snatch from throttle inputs when negotiating

obstacles at walking pace in low gears. It is more useful as a stopping tool when there is a pillion on the back

keeping weight over the rear wheel. Bike tyre technology has moved on a bit, quick to heat and soft rubber compounds

mean they are much more effective than they used to be in heavy braking or hard cornering.  

Wire-operated drums back and front on 125s in those days so braking was less effective. In an "Oh ****" situation, with only a couple of seconds before you hit, I found out that consconscious thought and a considered application of braking proportions doesn't play a part, reflexes take over and you just jam everything full-on.Cadence braking was just coming into fashion then and was only effective on hydraulic systems, if you had time, not in a 1,2,3 bang situation. In fact, I just bad time to slightly alter the track of the bike (Before braking) to the right because it looked as if the other driver might just clear the junction and that I could avoid impact by skirting round the back end. Unfoftunately, she wasn't able to clear the junction, due to a line of other cars blocking her exit route, and came to a stop, right in the middle of the carriageway. So it was 1,2,3, bang. And the fact that I had managed to slightly tilt the bike, in anticipation of her clearing the junction, only served to ensure that the back- end of my bike came round when I started to brake heavily. I went into her car  slightly sideways. The lady who made the ill-judged turn, was later prosecuted.

 

Going back to the subject of the post, it doesn't look as if the copper braked at all. I'm wondering whether he had assessed the emerging vehicle as potential terrorist threat and unilaterally decided to take it out so as to allow the Range Rover to go on. The extent of danage to the Prius seems excessive for a low speed hit. I wonder if these bikes are strengthened/lightly armoured ?

 

Nick

Wire-operated drums back and front on 125s in those days so braking was less effective. In an "Oh ****" situation, with only a couple of seconds before you hit, I found out that consconscious thought and a considered application of braking proportions doesn't play a part, reflexes take over and you just jam everything full-on.Cadence braking was just coming into fashion then and was only effective on hydraulic systems, if you had time, not in a 1,2,3 bang situation. In fact, I just bad time to slightly alter the track of the bike (Before braking) to the right because it looked as if the other driver might just clear the junction and that I could avoid impact by skirting round the back end. Unfoftunately, she wasn't able to clear the junction, due to a line of other cars blocking her exit route, and came to a stop, right in the middle of the carriageway. So it was 1,2,3, bang. And the fact that I had managed to slightly tilt the bike, in anticipation of her clearing the junction, only served to ensure that the back- end of my bike came round when I started to brake heavily. I went into her car  slightly sideways. The lady who made the ill-judged turn, was later prosecuted.

 

Going back to the subject of the post, it doesn't look as if the copper braked at all. I'm wondering whether he had assessed the emerging vehicle as potential terrorist threat and unilaterally decided to take it out so as to allow the Range Rover to go on. The extent of danage to the Prius seems excessive for a low speed hit. I wonder if these bikes are strengthened/lightly armoured ?

 

Nick

Your first post didn't say you were talking about bikes of yore.

I thought (however unlikely) that you were still a biker based on your post.  

Yes old fashioned bikes had shocking brakes. I agree with that. 

Old fashioned licence laws also meant untrained riders were out on the roads

insufficiently equipped to know what to do in the event of a problem. 

Nowadays you're taught all sorts of handy stuff, like counter steering

for instance. The BMW bike in the pics most likely had ABS. Most modern BMWs do

so they don't skid like more traditional machines. Both brakes are linked and controlled

by the sensors in each wheel which detect lock and distribute braking effort to the wheels

with the most grip.  The rider probably had less than a second to brake and

the bike did the rest, there wasn't the time to make any real difference to closing speed.

 When trained to ride bikes these days the description I posted above in post #14

is how you are taught to do an emergency stop nowadays. Bringing the bike to quick halt using both brakes

but with an emphasis on the front. Locking the back wheel will fail your Module 1 test. So perhaps   

riders are just better trained now or depending on when your biking era was, trained at all.  

 

There are currently a minimum of 4 stages to getting a full bike licence, even more if you are under 24 with a

repeat of the tests required to upgrade your licence to an unrestricted one or alternatively a two year

wait with a power restriction before it automatically upgrades (age dependent). 

 

Shame the DOT aren't as stringent with car drivers really, the roads would be safer if your average

baseball hat wearing neanderthal in a souped up saxo or iphone airhead bimbo driving a car with eyelashes had a few

more hoops to jump through before being let loose on the roads. I'd love to see a 1.0 60bhp maximum for

new car drivers until they have 2 years clean driving experience or until further training and tests are taken

proving their ability and skill is sufficient to have something more powerful. Just like young bikers have to. 

 

As for the armour point, read it back and tell me if it's really likely that using a motorcycle as a battering

ram is a known Police tactic. Armour would be pointless, the bike would become needlessly heavy and thus

unwieldy yet the rider is still just as vulnerable. Armoured or not the bike would be destroyed instantly, and most likely

the rider would too. Nobody is going to risk not going home to their family in the civilian world. There's a good salary

pension and early retirement package that isn't worth risking your life for like that. They aren't soldiers.

The car drivers are taught this ramming tactic but I think common sense dictates that riders aren't. They are far more useful

in halting traffic so VIP can get out of danger quickly in his reinforced, bullet proof car or chasing suspects trying to

leave the scene of an assasination attempt or abduction.  

Shame the DOT aren't as stringent with car drivers really, the roads would be safer if your average

baseball hat wearing neanderthal in a souped up saxo or iphone airhead bimbo driving a car with eyelashes had a few

more hoops to jump through before being let loose on the roads. I'd love to see a 1.0 60bhp maximum for

new car drivers until they have 2 years clean driving experience or until further training and tests are taken

proving their ability and skill is sufficient to have something more powerful. Just like young bikers have to. 

 

I can't agree that the process for learning to ride is safer than the process for driving, simply because of the 2 year gap between CBT and full licence.

I'm sure other areas are different, but in my experience some of the worst and most dangerous road behaviour I have seen has been from small bikes and mopeds on L plates. 2 years to ride around with only basic training and no expressed need to take part in any further training or assessment during that time seems risky to say the least, if not fully absurd.  I fully understand that there's no practical alternative for riders to gain experience once they can safely operate and control the vehicle, unlike a car where someone can sit with you, but the lack of moderation or supervision means exceptionally inexperienced road users are out on the roads for a potentially long period of time.

 

However, I massively agree with the idea of taking a more staged approach for young/new drivers though, placing limits on what can be driven up to a certain age, level of experience or level of qualification.  I'd be very interested to hear what people's objections would be because it just sounds like a nice bit of common sense.

 

 

 

Coming back on topic,

I don't think I could pick fault.  The Prius driver should have spent a moment longer to properly check the road. I think that ultimately that it would come down as his responsibility to check that the road ahead was clear, regardless of how unlikely it might seem to find someone coming the other way on the wrong side of the road at speed.  I certainly couldn't blame him though, as overtaking at speed, past a junction (that would have been signed) where there is a car waiting to turn and clearly indicating shows fairly poor judgement from the MCR. 

I would imagine that from the Prius driver's point of view while at the junction, and the distance to the closing vehicles, the MCR would have been obstructed from the driver's view; whether still behind the white salon or already beginning his overtake, MCR was very likely completely out of sight.

TBH, I don't think I'd have chanced pulling out in-front of the saloon, but hey.

I agree that a 2 hour evaluation of  basic road use is probably insufficient to allow 

un accompanied road use for two years. But as you rightly state, a lot of this is due to 

the natural limitations of a bike as a mode of transport. But it's almost like the regulations 

in place to go on to a full licence are designed to make it more costly and more of a faff . Until 

you turn 24 when you can do it in as short a time as you are capable of. Who would pay to do their tests 

twice unless they REALLY REALLY wanted to be a biker. The figures for taking bike test have been dropping

steadily ever since Europe got involved with the legislation over test process. I don't know how that's

good for biking as a hobby, mode of transport or past time. If you go to a place where bikers congregate,

it's either old gits like me with grey beards and big bikes. Or spotty kids on L plates playing the fool on toy ones.

Very few young people representing the bit in the middle. And that's mostly down to the new regs.     

 

Chatting to my instructor, he says the main take up of CBT is usually now either 16 year olds wanting a moped until they

can learn to drive at 17, so no real impetus to invest money in further training there, or more mature students like me

who are keen to go the distance (usually 24 and over due to the age limit on direct access)

and get proper bikes and the full A group entitlement  and sail through the whole process quickly. 

I did it in 3 weeks, but it could have been a week if I hadn't had to wait for test dates. 

But I rode back when I was a nipper, so I wasn't a novice, and have 20 more years of

road experience under my belt to boot. In various classes of vehicle.  

I believe bikers are trained better than car drivers are at the point in time where they are awarded

a full licence for their particular favoured conveyance. 

Really? No offence but that's plain bad riding!

I use about 75% front brake to scrub speed off quickly switching and  bringing the bike to a gentle stop with the rear.

In the emergency stop scenario the weight is shifted quickly onto the front tyre increasing its grip.

That's why proper bikes have twin massive disc brakes at the front and tiny little single ones ones at the rear. 

Rear brake is best used to stabilise the bike when doing low speed manouvres, so you ride with the brake on

a little bit. It works by keeping the chain taut thus removing transmission snatch from throttle inputs when negotiating

obstacles at walking pace in low gears. It is more useful as a stopping tool when there is a pillion on the back

keeping weight over the rear wheel. Bike tyre technology has moved on a bit, quick to heat and soft rubber compounds

mean they are much more effective than they used to be in heavy braking or hard cornering.  

 

Very true, plus when someone pulls out in front of you at a junction and you are going to hit it, the rear end is usually off the ground from so much force being applied on the front. I had this happen to me doing about 60mph, managed to steer around the inside of the car and missed it completely, if it hadn't been for the grass verge and lack of grip on it I would have got away unscathed, bike written off and some minor soft tissue damage wasn't too bad in hindsight. Now I am always extra cautious around 4x4's and busy junctions, you live and learn (sometimes)....