The "Sh*t Driving Caught On Dashcam" Thread

[saaby93]

NoNeed said:

Funk said:

saaby93 said:

^^^^^ Thats very close

Look what came up as the next video...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYVV4NqI3cg
Someone runs across a zebra in front of a car

To be honest I'm not really sure who's most to blame for that. Driver should've been looking for peds near the crossing (especially as it's Abbey Road and known to be a bit of a magnet for weirdos) however the ped has to take responsibility for checking that cars have stopped rather than running out like a spacker.

I think the pedestrian would have been hidden to the car driver by the 4x4 which was moving across the crossing giving the impression that it's ok to continue.

I would love a driver eye view of that.

To be accurate I think it would be fair to say the pedestrian ran into the side of the car, even if it was only the front wing so they fell across the bonnet and were slammed forward by the windscreen.

Can the driver be responsible for someone running into the side of them?

[anonymous-user]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAlSskuIWHE

Red Neck trucker, says NO to this blonde trying to merge..

vw's are tough

[NoNeed]

saaby93 said:

NoNeed said:

Funk said:

saaby93 said:

^^^^^ Thats very close

Look what came up as the next video...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYVV4NqI3cg
Someone runs across a zebra in front of a car

To be honest I'm not really sure who's most to blame for that. Driver should've been looking for peds near the crossing (especially as it's Abbey Road and known to be a bit of a magnet for weirdos) however the ped has to take responsibility for checking that cars have stopped rather than running out like a spacker.

I think the pedestrian would have been hidden to the car driver by the 4x4 which was moving across the crossing giving the impression that it's ok to continue.

I would love a driver eye view of that.

To be accurate I think it would be fair to say the pedestrian ran into the side of the car, even if it was only the front wing so they fell across the bonnet and were slammed forward by the windscreen.

Can the driver be responsible for someone running into the side of them?

I would say yes at a well identified crossing as you should be approaching it with caution anyway, well maybe some of the blame, I was thinking that this driver could use the mitigation that the other cars were carrying on as normal and that the pedestrian was unsighted due to the 4x4.

[heebeegeetee]

They're very basic rules that pedestrians have priority at zebra crossings and that drivers should treat them like a normal give way. However it seems that driving across a zebra without being able to see that it is clear is perfectly acceptable.
I just know that drivers behave differently at normal give ways because they're much less bothered about colliding with pedestrians than they are with cars.

[Timfy]

saaby93 said:

^^^^^ Thats very close

Look what cmae up as the next video...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYVV4NqI3cg
Someone runs across a zebra in front of a car

To be honest whilst the driver really should have been being more cautious on the approach to a busy zebra crossing, that looks like a very deliberate attempt to take a knock and come to harm by the woman. She seems to see the car and immediately break out into a run aiming directly for it and does't seem to make any attempt to avoid the tonne of pain she's heading towards. If the driver had observed the junction a little too early they'd have just seen a woman walking several feet from the junction. I'm not sure what her motivation would have been to seemingly do that on purpose? Mental health issues? Compo claim scam? Genuinely thought she could make it across if she ran through the car?

No excuse for the driver not stopping, though, surely?

Edited by Timfy on Thursday 9th July 07:26

[karona]

saaby93 said:

^^^^^ Thats very close

Look what cmae up as the next video...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYVV4NqI3cg
Someone runs across a zebra in front of a car

A big thread here about that crossing, and a discussion on that incident starts about page 51
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[heebeegeetee]

Timfy said:

To be honest whilst the driver really should have been being more cautious on the approach to a busy zebra crossing, that looks like a very deliberate attempt to take a knock and come to harm by the woman. She seems to see the car and immediately break out into a run aiming directly for it and does't seem to make any attempt to avoid the tonne of pain she's heading towards. If the driver had observed the junction a little too early they'd have just seen a woman walking several feet from the junction. I'm not sure what her motivation would have been to seemingly do that on purpose? Mental health issues? Compo claim scam? Genuinely thought she could make it across if she ran through the car?

No excuse for the driver not stopping, though, surely?

Edited by Timfy on Thursday 9th July 07:26

It was a child, IIRC 12 years old. As said, there was a lengthy debate on another thread, where the general consensus of opinion is that it is ok to proceed where you can't see that it is clear to do so.

For me, not being able to see is a reason to stop, but most feel that it's a reason to go.

However, I do not ever want to strike a child on a zebra crossing, nor to end up in court on a charge of doing so, so I don't cross them until I can see it's clear (which means being able to see the pavement at the crossing too), pretty much exactly the same as I do at the countless junctions where I am required to give way.

[saaby93]

heebeegeetee said:

It was a child, IIRC 12 years old. As said, there was a lengthy debate on another thread, where the general consensus of opinion is that it is ok to proceed where you can't see that it is clear to do so.

For me, not being able to see is a reason to stop, but most feel that it's a reason to go.

However, I do not ever want to strike a child on a zebra crossing, nor to end up in court on a charge of doing so, so I don't cross them until I can see it's clear (which means being able to see the pavement at the crossing too), pretty much exactly the same as I do at the countless junctions where I am required to give way.

Mixing two things there.
As we drive along we should all be prepared to avoid other road users if we can, so we take into account prevailing conditions and drive at appropriate speed.
However if someone pulls out in front of you or simply walks out in front of you within your stopping distance, you've likely run over them before you've had the few seconds to even think about stopping. There's some responsibility on other road users too hence the HC for pedestrians at crossings says they should make sure traffic has stopped before crossing (and of course traffic should stop if they see them about to cross).

Here the crossing is clear as the car approaches it, at what looks like the same speed everyone else has assessed as safe. It's only at the last few seconds that the pedestrian decides to run across it. There's no way at that distance from what they thought was a clear crossing is the car and driver going to be able to stop. If it was a walking pedestrian, the car would have been long gone by the time the pedestrian was in the same space.
Why didn't the pedestrian attempt to avoid by running behind the car?

Does it look deliberate to anyone else?

Edited by saaby93 on Thursday 9th July 08:22

[Moonhawk]

The Spruce goose said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAlSskuIWHE

Red Neck trucker, says NO to this blonde trying to merge..

vw's are tough

There are a few videos like this bouncing around. I never understood why people continue to press a move like that once the door has been shut - it only ever ends one way.

[saaby93]

Moonhawk said:

The Spruce goose said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAlSskuIWHE

Red Neck trucker, says NO to this blonde trying to merge..

vw's are tough

There are a few videos like this bouncing around. I never understood why people continue to press a move like that once the door has been shut - it only ever ends one way.

That's the same as a few other threads. The truck driver can see what's likely to happen and fails to adjust speed. You don't plough on regardless if you can see someone's made a mistake, and if you do a collision is going to happen. As been posted before two wrongs dont make a right.
You don't often get a video of someone practicing avoidance so nothing happens
but the van driver avoiding the car coming up a slip road, both thinking they have the same space, a page or so back was one

Edited by saaby93 on Thursday 9th July 08:28

[heebeegeetee]

saaby93 said:

ixing two things there.
As we drive along we should all be prepared to avoid other road users if we can, so we take into account prevailing conditions and drive at appropriate speed.
However if someone pulls out in front of you or simply walks out in front of you within your stopping distance, you've likely run over them before you've had the few seconds to even think about stopping. There's some responsibility on other road users too hence the HC for pedestrians at crossings says they should make sure traffic has stopped before crossing (and of course traffic should stop if they see them about to cross).

Here the crossing is clear as the car approaches it, at what looks like the same speed everyone else has assessed as safe. It's only at the last few seconds that the pedestrian decides to run across it. There's no way at that distance from what they thought was a clear crossing is the car and driver going to be able to stop. If it was a walking pedestrian, the car would have been long gone by the time the pedestrian was in the same space.
Why didn't the pedestrian attempt to avoid by running behind the car?

Does it look deliberate to anyone else?

Edited by saaby93 on Thursday 9th July 08:22

I'm not too bothered about the actions of the child. You won't ever stop children behaving like children; children will always behave like children, and will run when they shouldn't.

So I drive accordingly, and I don't cross zebras unless I can see the pavement both sides. The fact that I may have believed it clear some moments before wouldn't lull me into making a really basic error that could see me in deep trouble. That's just one of the little challenges that driving throws up and we should be able to deal with them.

[saaby93]

heebeegeetee said:

So I drive accordingly, and I don't cross zebras unless I can see the pavement both sides. The fact that I may have believed it clear some moments before wouldn't lull me into making a really basic error that could see me in deep trouble. That's just one of the little challenges that driving throws up and we should be able to deal with them.

I know and I've seen some what you posted in the other thread
It doesn't look there's an error here. You'd have checked the crossing was clear, even take the extra step that no one looks like they're about to cross, when someone runs into the side of you.
They were late enough running they didn't manage to get in front.
Isnt it doubtful, a reasonable driver would be able to avoid in that circumstance?

[Vipers]

The Spruce goose said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAlSskuIWHE

Red Neck trucker, says NO to this blonde trying to merge..

vw's are tough

Most odd, he pulls left, so he has seen her, then when she hits his truck he shouts "What the hell", as though he was a bolt out of the blue. Dipst both of the,.

[heebeegeetee]

saaby93 said:

I know and I've seen some what you posted in the other thread
It doesn't look there's an error here. You'd have checked the crossing was clear, even take the extra step that no one looks like they're about to cross, when someone runs into the side of you.
They were late enough running they didn't manage to get in front.
Isnt it doubtful, a reasonable driver would be able to avoid in that circumstance?

I think if you stop the film at 11 secs it does not look good. I'd be devastated if I hit a pedestrian in those circumstances, and seriously, I would put myself through re-training if the courts didn't.

[Vipers]

heebeegeetee said:

saaby93 said:

I know and I've seen some what you posted in the other thread
It doesn't look there's an error here. You'd have checked the crossing was clear, even take the extra step that no one looks like they're about to cross, when someone runs into the side of you.
They were late enough running they didn't manage to get in front.
Isnt it doubtful, a reasonable driver would be able to avoid in that circumstance?

I think if you stop the film at 11 secs it does not look good. I'd be devastated if I hit a pedestrian in those circumstances, and seriously, I would put myself through re-training if the courts didn't.

Either way, the pedestrian must accept some of the blame,

[heebeegeetee]

Vipers said:

Either way, the pedestrian must accept some of the blame,

She's under the legal age of responsibilty, so in law she doesn't, I believe.

[saaby93]

heebeegeetee said:

I think if you stop the film at 11 secs it does not look good. I'd be devastated if I hit a pedestrian in those circumstances,

Of course you would and so would anyone, but you have to give yourself mitigation

Here's the clip from the other thread.
The runner has just leaped onto the crossing, and the car is at the point it would normally have stopped for a pedestrian.



To have stopped there, you'd have to have realised you have to stop a few seconds earlier
To do that youd need the pedestrain to be waiting nearby or about to use the crossing.
By the time youre at the point the car is, it's too late. You'll be through the crossing before they cross.
If that runner was a walker, theyd have walked across behind the car. Theyd probably pause a second to make sure the car was through the crossing anyway.

You cant say to someone that if you see a pedestrian at that point in that clip you have to stop within zero feet. There's something called thinking time and physics.

So although youd be cut up about it, it's not your fault.

[DoubleSix]

saaby93 said:

heebeegeetee said:

I think if you stop the film at 11 secs it does not look good. I'd be devastated if I hit a pedestrian in those circumstances,

Of course you would and so would anyone, but you have to give yourself mitigation

Here's the clip from the other thread.
The runner has just leaped onto the crossing, and the car is at the point it would normally have stopped for a pedestrian.



To have stopped there, you'd have to have realised you have to stop a few seconds earlier
To do that youd need the pedestrain to be waiting nearby or about to use the crossing.
By the time youre at the point the car is, it's too late. You'll be through the crossing before they cross.
If that runner was a walker, theyd have walked across behind the car. Theyd probably pause a second to make sure the car was through the crossing anyway.

You cant say to someone that if you see a pedestrian at that point in that clip you have to stop within zero feet. There's something called thinking time and physics.

So although youd be cut up about it, it's not your fault.

Indeed.

And it's pretty obvious the black car traveling the opposite way obscures the drivers view of the pedestrian until very late on in the scenario.

[GreatGranny]

Dick Turpin said:

fking close.
http://youtu.be/Ml-ADPNbo6Y

But its got to be the cyclists fault surely! ;-)

[DoubleSix]

GreatGranny said:

Dick Turpin said:

fking close.
http://youtu.be/Ml-ADPNbo6Y

But its got to be the cyclists fault surely! ;-)

Definitely not his his fault but seems pretty oblivious to the fast approaching big red box though...