According to a District Judge hearing a case of causing death by careless driving, the fact that the victim, a motorcyclist, was travelling at 97mph at the point of impact was not relevant. It was solely the actions of the car driver.
Guess that’s why I’ve always known that car drivers are zb’s…!
This was in the UK■■?
If this was a UK ruling, I have read that these crazy old coots enjoy a salary of around £100k pa. Nice to know that this generous remuneration package attracts the most capable, intelligent and level-headed professionals. 
Unless we know all the details he could be right.
The Judge is right, speed itself doesn’t kill, it is inappropriate speed for the vehicle, conditions and the driver’s/rider’s ability.
Doesn’t matter whether you’re doing 19 or 90 mph on a bike if some dozy ■■■■ in a car T-bones you its going hurt, the only difference is the severity.
At 97mph it wasn’t the speed that killed him , it was the stopping .
waddy640:
According to a District Judge hearing a case of causing death by careless driving, the fact that the victim, a motorcyclist, was travelling at 97mph at the point of impact was not relevant. It was solely the actions of the car driver.
If the motorcycle was going east @ 27mph and got hit head on by a westbound car doing 70 in a 30 zone, then at the point of impact, the motorcyclist was doing 97mph, and probably showed no signs of braking either.
These things look different when viewed from the other side of the street. 
Winseer:
waddy640:
According to a District Judge hearing a case of causing death by careless driving, the fact that the victim, a motorcyclist, was travelling at 97mph at the point of impact was not relevant. It was solely the actions of the car driver.If the motorcycle was going east @ 27mph and got hit head on by a westbound car doing 70 in a 30 zone, then at the point of impact, the motorcyclist was doing 97mph, and probably showed no signs of braking either.
These things look different when viewed from the other side of the street.
I see your point Winseer, but something doesn`t sit right, here. In your described scenario, the combined speeds add up to create an impact equivalent to 97mph. This still does not mean that the motorcyclist was travelling at that speed. The physics cannot be interpreted or attributed to the unfortunate rider like that.
As a thought, if he was travelling at say, 4mph, would said judge still rule his speed as irrelevant?
If its the Norfolk incident the the car turned off his carriageway across the path of the motorcyclist.
Nearly had a similar thing happen to me in the Pennines, fortunately I was going at a sensible legal speed, scrubbed off even more and managed to squeeze past the car on the verge 
if I hadn’t I would have at the very least spent a long time in hospital.
Combined speeds in opposing directions do not equal the same damage as a single impact.
example.
1 car travels at 30mph, has a head on with another car coming at 60mph in opposite direction. The result is not the same as a car hitting a wall at 90mph.
I agree the judge could be right. But ■■■■ near 100mph is crazy on any road. People don’t realise that yes its great fun to drive/ride at these speeds, but stopping when something goes wrong is decidedly not fun.
Not enough information to make this post relevant.
schrodingers cat:
Not enough information to make this post relevant.
Since when does that stop anyone on here?
bike doing 97 on a road, car comes round a bend wrong side of the line, speed wouldn’t have been the main factor for the accident would it …
as its said not enough info
1 car travels at 30mph, has a head on with another car coming at 60mph in opposite direction. The result is not the same as a car hitting a wall at 90mph.
I don’t understand this, why isn’t it the same?
a car hitting a wall that is static impacts at 90 mph, two cars hitting each other impact at 90 mph
the impact is the same.
Surely the impact of a car hitting a wall would be less than than a head on collision with two cars. The wall has no kinetic energy where both cars would have, assuming the speeds add up to the same.
The energy involved in the ‘combined’ speed of a head on crash is the same as the energy involved in a crash involving a single vehicle travelling at that same ‘total’ speed.The kinetic energy is directly proportional to the speed/s in question
It’s because every action has an equal and opposite reaction. There is very cool episode of mythbusters set on this very thought experiment.
del949:
1 car travels at 30mph, has a head on with another car coming at 60mph in opposite direction. The result is not the same as a car hitting a wall at 90mph.
a car hitting a wall that is static impacts at 90 mph, two cars hitting each other impact at 90 mph
the impact is the same.
^ This head on crashes are all about the ‘combined speed’ on impact.Which is why relatively low speed head on crashes are so devastating as opposed to single vehicle ones.
rigsby:
At 97mph it wasn’t the speed that killed him , it was the stopping .
Definitely +1 for this comment