VIDEO: 170mph biker's fatal footage revealed
Disturbing and sobering footage of a biker's last moments
THE VIDEO footage of a biker involved in a fatal collision in Cornwall in July 2008 has been put out in the public domain.
Last week Visordown brought you the news story surrounding biker Fred Bowden, who appeared in court following the fatal road collision involving his close friend Andrew Prowse.
A court heard how the 42-year-old had been filming himself and Mr Prowse at speeds in excess of 165mph while the pair sped around the county's roads. Mr Prowse died instantly in a head on collision - the moments leading up to the crash can be seen towards the end of this clip.
Discuss this story
Nice overtake mover by the car, can't see from the video whether he indicated...bet he didn't. Was the car driver prosecuted at all...again, I bet not. Still proper toss riding be the Kwaka rider.
Posted: 16/06/2009 at 09:15
i watched this yesterday and cringed when the car pulled out, such a busy road for the speeds they were doing. feel really sorry for the family that everyone has seen him killed like that and the poor bugger in the camper van being hit head on.
Posted: 16/06/2009 at 10:25
How stupid to be doing 170mph in traffic even more stupid to be filming yourself. The cars overtaking manoeuver was dangerous even before he killed the biker. If only there where more cops in cars helping people remember to drive /ride safely and less reliance on speed cameras that just catch the forgetfull and not the dangerous.
Posted: 16/06/2009 at 12:51
Hear hear!!! I do believe that at the precise moment when he had the accident, speed wasn't the issue. The car who pulled out to overtake was the issue... However, it's a lottery. If you do silly speeds all the time, one of those times you're bound to pull the short straw, it's your law of averages. RIP 
Posted: 16/06/2009 at 13:00
A man'sgot to know his limits. This poor sod obviously didn't. Sure the car driver was partly to blame but if you ride a bike, you've got to try and allow for the dumbness of others. Condolences to his family and friends. Always a sad thing.
Posted: 16/06/2009 at 13:10
When I was learning to ride a bike I was told to enjoy the speed and freedom but treat all other drivers as dickheads, and look out for yourself, because no-one else does. Very sad
Posted: 16/06/2009 at 13:13
And that was at 170mph? Yet another example of sensationalisation when a bike is involved. Probably 70-80 MPH more like.
Posted: 16/06/2009 at 13:37
Blackbox..... I think we all agree speed wasn't the issue, it was haste. If he'd made himself more visible in the offending car''s rear view perhaps it would've not overtaken etc, or if he'd given himself more time to observe the issues ahead of him he may have decided to hold back for a few more moments. I guess it was down to his haste (the rider), adrenaline, and ignoring some basic riding practices which we've all done to some degree or another.
Posted: 16/06/2009 at 13:42
As bikers, we must assume: a) Most other drivers are blind (this rises to an absolute certainty in the case of 7 series Volvo and taxi drivers) b) Those that aren't are actively trying to kill you No, I didn't see 170mph displayed (and it was around half that at the time of the crash) but when it comes to numbers, journos use 'Fishermans' Maths'*  * Closely related to 'Male Genital Calculus' and 'Conquest Quantum'
Posted: 16/06/2009 at 14:30
Yes, the Kwak rider did not correctly read the traffic.... BUT, the car driver pulled out on him. The rider's action was a reflex one I feel. Just because they were doing some high speeds prior to the accident does not excuse the car driver from proper observation. If the biker had pulled out on a car driver causing a fatal accident? The result would have been? PROSECUTION for sure.
Posted: 16/06/2009 at 14:36
Driving on the road.... Now the most unattractive...dangerous and unrewarding biking experience.. 3-4 trackdays a year does me now.... And 'yes' spare a thought for the 'victims' left after this very avoidable incident....
Posted: 16/06/2009 at 14:46
The rider's action was a reflex one I feel. Just because they were doing some high speeds prior to the accident does not excuse the car driver from proper observation.
If they had been riding at legal speeds he would not have been involved in that incident.
If he had not been intending to pass so close to the car he would have had room to manoevour. Can't see the car driver is at fault whatsoever - the entire cause and outcome of the event was the result of multiple bad choices made by the rider. If that is 'normal' for 'bikers' then I'm not overly surprised at the death toll on our roads. And it would confirm my suspicion that the vast majority of incidents are as a result of not very bright riders making extremely bad choices.
Posted: 16/06/2009 at 14:48
Bad for everybody concerned... As to the speed - well, no he wasn't doing 170mph at the time of the impact: But we all know what 80mph feels like when you have just been giving it some big numbers...only moments before. I'm with FJS rider on this one. The rider is gone - Everyone else: friends, family, witnesses and the poor bloody ambulance crew has to live with it. Just thanking god it wasn't my turn....
Posted: 16/06/2009 at 17:25
.....and the poor bloody ambulance crew has to live with it. I know a paramedic and fireman and they are quite stoic about this sort of thing. It is what they are trained for.
Posted: 16/06/2009 at 17:33
Hi FJS 'Stoic' in this case really means putting it into a mental compartment and moving-on. As a young boy I saw a fatal crash, on the German autobahn, involving a Porsche 911 -We passed that car before anything had been cleared-up. 36 years on I remember it like it was yesterday... Selfish bloody 1970's car driver!
Posted: 16/06/2009 at 17:48
An open letter to all who are blaming the car driver in any shape or form. You are all wrong In addition, if any of you actually have a licence then I suggest that you update your wills and kiss your families goodbye before you go out for a ride, as not one of you seems capable of seeing what actually happened on the video. - The car at the very front slowed and moved left.
- The second car indicated and moved out.
- The overtaking car had right of way over the biker, as he was further towards the front of the queue of traffic
- The biker having decided he had right of way rode into the BACK of the overtaking car.
- Undoubtedly the bike was masked behind the cars he was ovetaking and accelrating hard past
- The rider was attempting to over an overtaking car.
The car driver was not at fault in any way, the rider was totally culpable for an incident estimated at between 80-100mph (the 157 was earlier in the ride, actual speedo reading was 170). I know all this as my claims team were involved in resolving this and thebiker was held repsonsible for the incident. It never fails to amaze me how peoplecan see what they want to. I wonder how you'd react if the bike and car swapped positions. I reckon that you'd all blame the car driver for his speed, indecent haste, overtaking a line of traffic etc. all of which seems to have passed you by because it was a biker. As said in another thread, I have the utmost sympathy wth the biker's family, but he caused the incident, I have far more sympathy withbikers killed / injured through no fault of their own.
Posted: 16/06/2009 at 18:43
The overtaking car had right of way over the biker, as he was further towards the front of the queue of traffic
Just curious...is that part of the law or does it just apply in this case? When ever i'm in a queue of traffic and i'm passed by another car/bike as i'm looking to see if it's safe to pass it pisses me off but i've always been of the opinion that if they indicate and begin to move to pass then the driver/rider behind has right of way.
Posted: 16/06/2009 at 19:27
The overtaking car had right of way over the biker, as he was further towards the front of the queue of traffic
Just curious...is that part of the law or does it just apply in this case? When ever i'm in a queue of traffic and i'm passed by another car/bike as i'm looking to see if it's safe to pass it pisses me off but i've always been of the opinion that if they indicate and begin to move to pass then the driver/rider behind has right of way.
Have you got a full driving licence?
Posted: 16/06/2009 at 19:35
'Stoic' in this case really means putting it into a mental compartment and moving-on. Exactly that. And it appears that they see this sort of stuff quite often! (Remember the paramedic telling me of picking bits of Harrier(?) pilot out of trees after it crashed into the Blackdown Hills a few years back. Uck!) As a young boy I saw a fatal crash, on the German autobahn, involving a Porsche 911 -We passed that car before anything had been cleared-up. 36 years on I remember it like it was yesterday... For sure, the 'public' are seeing something in quite a different way to those in the emergency services.
Posted: 16/06/2009 at 19:39
the biker wasn't doing 170mph or anything like that at the time of the crash he was doing a relatively safe and ordinary overtake, that car drvier should have been prosecuted
Posted: 16/06/2009 at 19:44
The overtaking car had right of way over the biker, as he was further towards the front of the queue of traffic
Just curious...is that part of the law or does it just apply in this case? When ever i'm in a queue of traffic and i'm passed by another car/bike as i'm looking to see if it's safe to pass it pisses me off but i've always been of the opinion that if they indicate and begin to move to pass then the driver/rider behind has right of way.
Read The Highway Code and you'll see quite a few references to this, remember that you have a responsibility to drive / ride with due consideration for other road users. If the driver behind had right of way, then nobody would ever overtake, as they'd be too worried about the car / bike behind wanting to overtake them.
Posted: 16/06/2009 at 19:48
Surely the ovetaking car saw the oncoming campervan ??? Why did he continue the manouver? Did he think he could beat the bike or was it a deliberate hit? To teach him a lesson? Who knows what the F*** the car driver thought cos what he says after don't count! .. Perhaps he didn't look in his mirrors? who the hell pulls out without looking? .. Dont try and tell me he is NOT TO BLAME! Yes the biker made an error in judgement, but clearly the cager made more than one! Sorry to all involved, but thats the way I see it ......
Posted: 16/06/2009 at 19:52
the biker wasn't doing 170mph or anything like that at the time of the crash he was doing a relatively safe and ordinary overtake, that car drvier should have been prosecuted
No he wasn't, the rider with the video camera was accelerating up over 100mph and not making any ground on the biker who crashed.
Not to mention that he's over took his mate on the inside shortly before he collided with the car. He made a mistake which cost the poor bugger his life.
Posted: 16/06/2009 at 19:54
Surely the ovetaking car saw the oncoming campervan ??? Why did he continue the manouver? Did he think he could beat the bike or was it a deliberate hit? To teach him a lesson? Who knows what the F*** the car driver thought cos what he says after don't count! .. Perhaps he didn't look in his mirrors? who the hell pulls out without looking? .. Dont try and tell me he is NOT TO BLAME! Yes the biker made an error in judgement, but clearly the cager made more than one! Sorry to all involved, but thats the way I see it ......
OK I'm "trying to tell you". Would you like to come and view a life size version of events on our system at the office? How did the car driver ht the biker, did he cunningly stick it in reverse? Shouty, shout, shout some more by all means, but get your facts straight. Watch the video again.
Posted: 16/06/2009 at 20:14
You're a long time dead - However our views on this differ: let's learn from this... We're all smart arses when sat at our computers and so much better riders/drivers than the victims we read about eh?(ME INCLUDED!!) As to debating the Highway Code -you got me! I don't have an encyclopaedic knowledge of the bloody thing....Unless you're planning to use it to soak-up the blood: It's no substitute for using the grey stuff in the first place.
Posted: 16/06/2009 at 20:16
OK I'm "trying to tell you". Would you like to come and view a life size version of events on our system at the office? How did the car driver ht the biker, did he cunningly stick it in reverse? Shouty, shout, shout some more by all means, but get your facts straight. Watch the video again. I have, and your not making a good case or addressing the questions in my first post. Joking about someones death is not on. Dont bother trying to talk to me again .......
Posted: 16/06/2009 at 20:19
I have, and your not making a good case or addressing the questions in my first post. Joking about someones death is not on. Dont bother trying to talk to me again ....... Where do I joke about his death? I don't need to justify anything to you. The people who investigated this claim work for me and I looked at the case, as I have to review any case involving a fatality or payouts in excess of £1million. I have stated any number of times that I have the utmost sympathy for the biker's family. Your case is based on a biased personal opinion, where all bikers are innocent and all car drivers are guilty. Your first post asks "Perhaps he didn't look in his mirrors" and then immediately goes into a rant about "who the hell pulls out without..." Nothing but supposition based on your view, rather than the hard fatcs available ot me from reviewing the video objectively.
Posted: 16/06/2009 at 20:28
Who rattled your push chair ? Oh sorry, must be a 'club' thing, Glad I'm not a member as I prefer open minded honesty  If you cannot see where you have joked then I suggest you wind your over sized biggoted head back in .... just because an insurance company thinks it is the truth (possibly due to financial implications/responsibilities/constraints), it makes it the truth? Get a grip!
Posted: 16/06/2009 at 20:31
Who rattled your push chair ? Oh sorry, must be a 'club' thing, Glad I'm not a member as I prefer open minded honesty
You did. A"club" thing?? Wasn't it a "clique" last time. Open-minded honesty?? Reread the below and then explain where the open-minded aspect is for everyone: I've highlighted my favourite bits (which is pretty well all of it) Surely the ovetaking car saw the oncoming campervan ??? Why did he continue the manouver? Did he think he could beat the bike or was it a deliberate hit? To teach him a lesson? Who knows what the F*** the car driver thought cos what he says after don't count! .. Perhaps he didn't look in his mirrors? who the hell pulls out without looking? .. Dont try and tell me he is NOT TO BLAME! Yes the biker made an error in judgement, but clearly the cager made more than one! Sorry to all involved, but thats the way I see it ......
Posted: 16/06/2009 at 20:38
The speeds looked like km/h , not mph. RIP .
Posted: 16/06/2009 at 20:58
Sorry things are getting heated.... I guess the fact is that despite what any of us think it will all come down to what the Court decides. In this case the victim has been incriminated by his own mate's video footage -maybe without that preceding footage we might all be saying he was simply 'unlucky' on the day? I can't speak for anybody else: but know that I don't always follow the letter of the law or Highway Code and have been badly injured in the past - Just not quite this 'Unlucky' eh. Thanks for reading this -I'm not trying to lecture anybody.
Posted: 16/06/2009 at 22:07
I don't think anyone's taken any offence to your posts, they seem sensible enough. The trial was for the speeding, the incident was an unfortunate outcome, but not connected to what happened in court last week. The incident is what has sparked the debate, but this is only to be expected. It is a shame that some are so biased they can't see what actually happened. It is a tragedy for the biker and his family, but he did put himself in that position.
Posted: 16/06/2009 at 22:12
See more comments...
|
|
