Motorcycle Accident my wife witnessed on her way to the Vet's

GTA Driver

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Reaction score
597
Location
Greater Toronto Area
Country
Canada
Dash Cam
Iroad 3300CH, G1W-c, Mobius C, A119 v1 & v3, A118-c2
Here is an accident my wife witness today on her way to the Vet to have one of our dogs looked at


Apparently the motorcyclist went airborne but you can not see that in the video. Only the rear tire lifting as it appears he is braking.

My wife was alone, aside from having Simba, our Great Dane \Rotti Mix, with her. When she says "did you see that", she is talking to him. She called 911 and a full video with emergency response will be posted later. The quality after posting to youtube took a big hit despite using encoding in ffmpeg that worked in the past.

Its possible if I had a side cam, and had it arrange like @Dashmellow, it may have caught him going airborne.
 
Last edited:
He looks like he was going way too fast and brought it on himself

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk
 
My wife was alone, aside from having Simba, our Great Dane \Rotti Mix, with her. When she says "did you see that", she is talking to him...
I've not come across a dog capable of using a telephone before, normally their paws are too big to use the buttons. How did Simba dial 911 when asked to do so?

Don't have any sympathy for the motorcyclist, if you drive through a junction at a speed where you are incapable of stopping within the next half mile then anything that happens to you is your fault!

If that is 30fps video then roughly 108Km/h / 67mph.

Edit: Recalculation, in the centre of the junction the speed appears to be around 127kph / 79mph, he has slowed down a bit by the zoomed in part.
 
Last edited:
He looks like he was going way too fast and brought it on himself...
...Don't have any sympathy for the motorcyclist, if you drive through a junction at a speed where you are incapable of stopping within the next half mile then anything that happens to you is your fault!...
+1
 
Its possible if I had a side cam, and had it arrange like @Dashmellow, it may have caught him going airborne.

Yes, it definitely would have captured that. I'm often amazed at the things my side cameras capture that I would have otherwise missed on camera.

Just the other day I had to take one of my side cameras out of service temporarily and I felt "naked" driving around without it for a day. After running 4 cameras with overlapping coverage for quite some time now it's become a "must have" capability. Most of the time the side cam captures, though interesting, don't amount to much, but now and again you encounter an "OMG" event and it's gratifying that I can get it on camera.
 
I'm often amazed at the things my side cameras capture that I would have otherwise missed on camera.

DITTO.
Side cameras, and my long range camera in the windscreen, i cant even imagine not having those.
You dont see it with the car coming against you on the highway, but the side camera will give you 2-3 good frames of the idiot going the other way at 80 km/h with the phone in the hand.
 
Side cameras, and my long range camera in the windscreen, i cant even imagine not having those.
I got to see one of your side by side videos with the long range. That is a darn good idea to have one along side a regular camera. I may have to pick your brain sometime on maybe setting one up in the future. As far as side cameras, I have been saying for over a year I am going to install some. Thinking about Blackvue 590. Just got one delivered to install in the wife's car.
 
It is nice indeed, and i find often things in traffic go on a few cars ahead, and with a regular camera you will just get a very general footage of that.
Where as the long range camera give a pretty complete picture, so say a bank robber come storming out of a bank and jump into a car, with the long range i can tell a lot about him where as a regular camera i will just be able to tell its a person and not bigfoot robbing the bank.
 
Totally agree, I have some footage I tried zooming in on and it became pretty much useless. Had a biker come into my lane on one wheel passing a van. Couldn't even tell it was a bike. But I still put it in my lame youtube channel compilation.
 
I got to see one of your side by side videos with the long range. That is a darn good idea to have one along side a regular camera. I may have to pick your brain sometime on maybe setting one up in the future. As far as side cameras, I have been saying for over a year I am going to install some. Thinking about Blackvue 590. Just got one delivered to install in the wife's car.

WeedeaterDM, speaking of pairing a telephoto lens dash cam with a standard wide angle cam, check this out and see what you think.
 
WeedeaterDM, speaking of pairing a telephoto lens dash cam with a standard wide angle cam, check this out and see what you think.
Interesting, I am saving that page for later reading. Running late for breakfast with a state trooper friend. Have a good day all.
 
I've not come across a dog capable of using a telephone before, normally their paws are too big to use the buttons. How did Simba dial 911 when asked to do so?

Well he can sit and shake a paw for a treat. Perhaps training ....
My wife was speaking to herself. What the camera didn't catch. My wife figured he the motorcyclist traveled 20 feet before he hit the ground. She was in shock.

If that is 30fps video then roughly 108Km/h / 67mph.

Edit: Recalculation, in the centre of the junction the speed appears to be around 127kph / 79mph, he has slowed down a bit by the zoomed in part.

The original video from my A119 is 30fps, but I wonder if the fps got altered with all the editing.

The video on you tube has three parts.
  1. Trimming the original 1 minute clip from my A119 at 30 fps to include time before he goes past the intersection and to the point my wife decides to call 911
  2. Slow mo with the motorcyclist going thru the intersection to point of losing control WITHOUt cropping. I experimented with numerous speeds with ffmpeg, but I believe this is 5 times slower the original rate
  3. slow mo - cropped to our vehicles right hand side, to the point of losing control . I experimented with numerous speeds with ffmpeg, but I believe this is 10 times slower the original rate
To concatenate all three videos in Ffmpeg, I Re-encoded all three clips to be a consistent codec. Changing the speed or cropping changes the codec and thus ffmpeg is unable to concatenate them as it requires all clips in the input file to be the same codec.

Also, despite having an youtube friendly re-encoding, youtube still needed to re-encode them and
  1. I got the dreaded "Your video will transfer faster if"
  2. the quality got destroyed.
I figure youtube can't handle a video if speed of it was changed with ffmpeg. I have no such problems if I upload videos coming from Kdenlive.

I figure the intersection is 19 meters.

The file, with only getting trimmed to the point of him crossing the intersection can be found at
https://app.box.com/s/5wzym9nbalroe9niurpyg33go6ypcipa
I used ffmpeg to edit a 1 minute clip to the relevant 3 seconds , but retain the same codec.
At https://app.box.com/s/5wzym9nbalroe9niurpyg33go6ypcipa, you will also find some google screen shots of the intersection.
Edit: files also available at https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Xp99tv6-_XR1zAHiCL1gGCRdymapZdR5?usp=sharing
 
Last edited:
The original video from my A119 is 30fps, but I wonder if the fps got altered with all the editing.

The video on you tube has three parts.
  1. Trimming the original 1 minute clip from my A119 at 30 fps to include time before he goes past the intersection and to the point my wife decides to call 911
  2. Slow mo with the motorcyclist going thru the intersection to point of losing control WITHOUt cropping. I experimented with numerous speeds with ffmpeg, but I believe this is 5 times slower the original rate
  3. slow mo - cropped to our vehicles right hand side, to the point of losing control . I experimented with numerous speeds with ffmpeg, but I believe this is 10 times slower the original rate
To concatenate all three videos in Ffmpeg, I Re-encoded all three clips to be a consistent codec. Changing the speed or cropping changes the codec and thus ffmpeg is unable to concatenate them as it requires all clips in the input file to be the same codec.

Also, despite having an youtube friendly re-encoding, youtube still needed to re-encode them and
  1. I got the dreaded "Your video will transfer faster if"
  2. the quality got destroyed.
I figure youtube can't handle a video if speed of it was changed with ffmpeg. I have no such problems if I upload videos coming from Kdenlive.

I figure the intersection is 19 meters.

The file, with only getting trimmed to the point of him crossing the intersection can be found at
https://app.box.com/s/5wzym9nbalroe9niurpyg33go6ypcipa
I used ffmpeg to edit a 1 minute clip to the relevant 3 seconds , but retain the same codec.
At https://app.box.com/s/5wzym9nbalroe9niurpyg33go6ypcipa, you will also find some google screen shots of the intersection.
Edit: files also available at https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Xp99tv6-_XR1zAHiCL1gGCRdymapZdR5?usp=sharing
No, the frames were perfectly visible in your 5x slower version, and checking your 3 second clip I see the same - in 2 frames he travels a little further than the length of the bike, not sure what type of bike it is but that size is typically around 2.2 meters long so 2.35 meters total per 2 frames, divide by 2 to get distance in 1 frame, multiply by 30 (fps) for distance per second and then get Google to calculate "x m/s =?mph" and I get 79mph, probably a little more, I didn't bother counting the pixels, but it will be fairly close to the actual speed. Definitely too fast to go through a busy junction in the slow lane with pedestrians crossing the road, vehicles turning and vehicles in the other lanes which are clearly doing less than half the speed. The outcome is proof that it was too fast.

If you want to upload ffmpeg videos to YouTube without that warning, encode it in YouTube's own format - VP9: "-c:v libvpx-vp9 -crf 32 -b:v 0 -threads 2 -quality good -speed 1 -c:a libvorbis video.webm", you might also get better quality because it will appreciate your efforts!
 
he travels a little further than the length of the bike, not sure what type of bike it is but that size is typically around 2.2 meters long so 2.35 meters total per 2 frames, ....
In the 13 minute full video, which I have not uploaded as I have second thoughts, my wife eventually passed the motorcycle after a firetruck arrived.


mcOnGround-front.jpg

mcOnGround-rear.jpg

The math is interesting.


If you want to upload ffmpeg videos to YouTube without that warning, encode it in YouTube's own format - VP9: "-c:v libvpx-vp9 -crf 32 -b:v 0 -threads 2 -quality good -speed 1 -c:a libvorbis video.webm", you might also get better quality because it will appreciate your efforts!

Thanks, I have done a few searches in google, something to the effect of "ffmpeg youtube encoding" and got pages that never referred to vp9, at least at the top. Goes to show, that Google doesn't always return the best pages and one needs additional knowledge and use those keywords.

I am going to re-encode the clip and see if that saves me the frustration I was having with the other two methods I was using.
 
So what actually happened?

The bike looks like it didn't hit anything, I didn't see why he braked in the video, I assumed that the road became blocked ahead but looked like he could have slowed enough to squeeze passed, even if that meant using the footpath. Just seemed to put the brakes on too hard, I've never seen a motorbike do that unintentionally before...

VP9 is Youtube's preferred format, but because it takes a lot more processing power to encode, it normally just encodes H264 format until they get to 1000 views, then puts the effort in to reencode in VP9. So the difference you will see while the video still has a low view count will be small, once it is in VP9 it gets roughly twice the quality for the same bitrate when viewing, and for uploading you can get the same quality in half the upload size. (you can increase the 32 in my example if you want smaller uploads)
 
In the full video, my wife describes what she saw to the 911 operators and to myself after she spoke to them. As she mentioned, he didn't hit anything. He hit the brakes too hard as you stated. In reddit, someone claimed it could be because he didn't have ABS, but someone else mentioned ABS prevents wheel lockups but not wheel lifting.

I may post the full video but remove the audio of my wife talking to the 911 operators and myself.

So I used the encoding you recommended and it works, I don't get the dreaded "Your videos will process faster if you encode into a streamable file format."

I took all three video (normal,5x, crop 10 x) and encoded all to v9 using the webm container.

I then concatenated the three files to one file and using webm and mp4
Code:
ffmpeg -f concat -i input-vp9.txt -c copy output-vp9.mp4
ffmpeg -f concat -i input-vp9.txt -c copy output-vp9.webm

The first line works, the one with mp4, works even though the input file has webm. The second line off course works too.

However, when uploading to youtube, the mp4 version gets the dreaded "your videos will process". The webm version when uploaded to youtube does so WITHOUT the dreaded "your videos ..."

There is still softness for the first 15 seconds on a 67 second video for the Webm. The license plate on the video for the car in front becomes readable at 16 seconds.
 
Decided against including the audio of the 911 call. Did a video with the 911 scene with "subtitles" mentioning parts of the telephone conversation. At 2x speed for most of the video

 
Back
Top