woman killed in rta with hired R8
Discussion
Jimmyarm said:
He definately picked the wrong side of the fiesta to go round didn't he.
Never has 'if in doubt, flat out' been more true. If the poor women had hoofed it she would still be with us
She is still with us, the passenger lost her life.Never has 'if in doubt, flat out' been more true. If the poor women had hoofed it she would still be with us
Not sure if hoofing it, with a car travelling at that speed, would've changed the outcome. Ifs and buts don't help.
Jimmyarm said:
jagracer said:
While it's no get out for the Audi driver it looks like the woman who pulled out got the rabbit in the headlights syndrome and stopped in front of the oncoming car.
He definately picked the wrong side of the fiesta to go round didn't he.Never has 'if in doubt, flat out' been more true. If the poor women had hoofed it she would still be with us
LoonR1 said:
Two daft comments given the one before this mentioning the brow of the hill and no time to react either way.
Not daft at all, you can see that she stops as soon as she realises the R8 is coming, the R8 appears to be trying to go around the back of her.I'm not suggesting she was at fault, at the speed the R8 was going she could never have judged which side he was going to pick but with more speed it may (or may not) have been a near miss instead of a fatal.
It may not help the deceased us discussing the 'ifs & buts' but it might help one of us one day...
Obviously all blame belongs to the Audi driver. But that doesn't mean the victim might not, in hindsight, have done something different. If my house get's burgled I want to lnow how they got in, because there may well be something I can do in future to make another incident less likely. I don't say "I am not to blame therefore I refuse to learn from it."
Dr Jekyll said:
Obviously all blame belongs to the Audi driver. But that doesn't mean the victim might not, in hindsight, have done something different. If my house get's burgled I want to lnow how they got in, because there may well be something I can do in future to make another incident less likely. I don't say "I am not to blame therefore I refuse to learn from it."
Except in the analogy they have killed your family so what's the point. Dr Jekyll said:
Obviously all blame belongs to the Audi driver. But that doesn't mean the victim might not, in hindsight, have done something different.
Not go out that day?Because there wasn't much else that could have been done. Drive forward? Audi might have been swerving and hit. Reverse? Same goes. So stay where you are and hope the f**kwit maggot brained worthless ass***e in the Audi has sufficient skill and ability (or luck) to attempt to avoid the impact.
over_the_hill said:
Main story aside what type of people pay £600 a day (or £1400 for a weekend) to hire a car.
That is a serious amount of cash and well in excess of a weeks take-home for the vast majority. (I do of course realise that for most PH'ers it's just pocket change)
Anyone that does have that type of cash to chuck around probably wouldn't need the hire because they would already have something similar or could probably blag a free test drive for a day or so as an already established customer.
A common practice round here is to use them for money laundering. Your dirty readies get paid to your mate who owns the hire business, who the spends them on 'detailing/servicing/misc costs' back to the hirer, money's now clean. That is a serious amount of cash and well in excess of a weeks take-home for the vast majority. (I do of course realise that for most PH'ers it's just pocket change)
Anyone that does have that type of cash to chuck around probably wouldn't need the hire because they would already have something similar or could probably blag a free test drive for a day or so as an already established customer.
Certainly what was happening in sheffield a while back. Couldn't get through Darnall (virtually a slum) without seeing at least three gallardo/bentley/r8's.
I don't think that the Fiesta could have done much differently, apart from accelerating hard to get out of the way (but that is a counsel of perfection and very easy to say without ever having been in that situation).
It did, however, remind me of something that I have seen happen a couple of times (although I am not saying that this is what happened here) - person waiting to pull into traffic sees someone that they think is driving too fast and decides to pull out in front of them to teach them a lesson. It happened to me a couple of months ago - driving along at 60mph on a straight and well-sighted country road; person waiting in a side road spots me, even makes eye contact with me, and then pulls directly across my path and into the road opposite the junction from which they came. There was nobody behind me, so there was no reason to pull out then other than to make me brake. I missed the back of the car by about 4 feet and only then because (a) as soon as I saw the chap decide to go (if you know what I mean - he looked like he had decided to go - I was THAT close) I was braking hard enough that I almost lifted myself out of the seat and (2) the other car accelerated pretty hard across my path and so was out of the way quickly.
I've seen the same thing a couple of times with other cars, too, always a relatively elderly driver deciding to discipline the driver of the fast (or fast looking) car.
I sometimes wonder whether or not people have any conception of how far it takes to stop from 60mph or more. Pulling out in front of someone to make a point is a pretty dangerous game.
I emphasise again that I am not saying that this is what happened in this very tragic case. Quite apart from anything else, the victims wont even have seen the R8 until the last second if there was only 50 yards of visibility at the junction. The video just reminded me of it.
It did, however, remind me of something that I have seen happen a couple of times (although I am not saying that this is what happened here) - person waiting to pull into traffic sees someone that they think is driving too fast and decides to pull out in front of them to teach them a lesson. It happened to me a couple of months ago - driving along at 60mph on a straight and well-sighted country road; person waiting in a side road spots me, even makes eye contact with me, and then pulls directly across my path and into the road opposite the junction from which they came. There was nobody behind me, so there was no reason to pull out then other than to make me brake. I missed the back of the car by about 4 feet and only then because (a) as soon as I saw the chap decide to go (if you know what I mean - he looked like he had decided to go - I was THAT close) I was braking hard enough that I almost lifted myself out of the seat and (2) the other car accelerated pretty hard across my path and so was out of the way quickly.
I've seen the same thing a couple of times with other cars, too, always a relatively elderly driver deciding to discipline the driver of the fast (or fast looking) car.
I sometimes wonder whether or not people have any conception of how far it takes to stop from 60mph or more. Pulling out in front of someone to make a point is a pretty dangerous game.
I emphasise again that I am not saying that this is what happened in this very tragic case. Quite apart from anything else, the victims wont even have seen the R8 until the last second if there was only 50 yards of visibility at the junction. The video just reminded me of it.
KarlMac said:
A common practice round here is to use them for money laundering. Your dirty readies get paid to your mate who owns the hire business, who the spends them on 'detailing/servicing/misc costs' back to the hirer, money's now clean.
I doubt that very much. Its going to be a horrible way to launder money, given the business owner is going to be required to have details of who rented every single car. Bear in mind he's legally obliged to have their drivers license details / sort insurance etc. He can't just say he kept renting it out for £600 cash and had no idea who rented it...
KFC said:
Its going to be a horrible way to launder money, given the business owner is going to be required to have details of who rented every single car. Bear in mind he's legally obliged to have their drivers license details / sort insurance etc. He can't just say he kept renting it out for £600 cash and had no idea who rented it...
Ha - that's quite amusing KFC! Lots of people are 'required' to do lots of things. You are legally obliged to drive carefully and attentively. Not sell drugs. Register your car in your name and at your address. Pay for insurance, tax, MOT and whatnot. The fact that a lot of people from certain demographics don't may tell you all you need to know about the record-keeping of certain car hire companies. Oli.
The evidence-based observation that a particular criminal or antisocial activity is associated with a particular ethnic subculture is not in itself racist. Taking that into account when trying to come up with a strategy to deal with it is not racist. Assuming that an individual of that ethnicity behaves in that way *is* racist, as is assuming that the behaviour is typical of people of that ethnicity. Ignoring the activity altogether because of a fear of appearing to be racist is Rotherham Syndrome - and perhaps, to a lesser extent, so is denying the evidence of the association.
zcacogp said:
Ha - that's quite amusing KFC! Lots of people are 'required' to do lots of things. You are legally obliged to drive carefully and attentively. Not sell drugs. Register your car in your name and at your address. Pay for insurance, tax, MOT and whatnot. The fact that a lot of people from certain demographics don't may tell you all you need to know about the record-keeping of certain car hire companies.
Oli.
Sure, but you're making things horribly difficult for yourself. if the cops come and look at your books/records and 90% of your customers are fictional and/or launderers its going to be very obvious and a conviction at that point would seem a near certainty. Oli.
I can think of dozens of businesses that would be far more suited to laundering that type of money. Ones that nobody could so easily prove later on, like hire cars.
KFC said:
Sure, but you're making things horribly difficult for yourself. if the cops come and look at your books/records and 90% of your customers are fictional and/or launderers its going to be very obvious and a conviction at that point would seem a near certainty.
I can think of dozens of businesses that would be far more suited to laundering that type of money. Ones that nobody could so easily prove later on, like hire cars.
Would it help convince you if I told you the 'businessman' in question also owned a string of hand car washes?I can think of dozens of businesses that would be far more suited to laundering that type of money. Ones that nobody could so easily prove later on, like hire cars.
Cars that can do 190mph or that accelerate really fast should be banned say the do gooders.
Nooo Way!! say the pistonhead massive, its all the drivers fault for driving like a prat.
People like this guy will always drive like prats and the law gives them a slap on the wrist most the time.
So how's this for an Idea...
Lets just program the cars to disable the drivers air bag and seat belt if the car is driven +30 over the speed limit. Passenger safety systems stay on and you have to be over 60mph min before it kicks in.
That way we can still have fast cars, we would save a fortune for the tax payers and the Fk-tards would Darwin awards themselves out of the equation.
Nooo Way!! say the pistonhead massive, its all the drivers fault for driving like a prat.
People like this guy will always drive like prats and the law gives them a slap on the wrist most the time.
So how's this for an Idea...
Lets just program the cars to disable the drivers air bag and seat belt if the car is driven +30 over the speed limit. Passenger safety systems stay on and you have to be over 60mph min before it kicks in.
That way we can still have fast cars, we would save a fortune for the tax payers and the Fk-tards would Darwin awards themselves out of the equation.
stargazer30 said:
Cars that can do 190mph or that accelerate really fast should be banned say the do gooders.
Nooo Way!! say the pistonhead massive, its all the drivers fault for driving like a prat.
People like this guy will always drive like prats and the law gives them a slap on the wrist most the time.
Sure, dNooo Way!! say the pistonhead massive, its all the drivers fault for driving like a prat.
People like this guy will always drive like prats and the law gives them a slap on the wrist most the time.
heads are always going to drive like dheads. But letting them get behind the wheel of a powerful sports car that they've hired for a day just seems to be vastly increasing the risk of something nasty happening. Why not have some sort of restrictions on what cars people can drive? No hiring anything like this until you've held a driving license for 10 years. Maybe let people own them after they've had one for 5 years (I'm assuming people will be more careful with their own rather than a 24 hour hire). I'd ban people from driving with more than 1 passenger in the first year after passing their test. And I'd probably ban them from driving late at night unless they were going to/from work. And put restrictions on power/speed etc until they've had their license a few years.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff