Potholes - Porsche Driver Killed

[Guybrush]

georgeyboy12345 said:

juice said:

georgeyboy12345 said:

This is what you get when you vote conservative, who cut funding on everything like this while still raising taxes even though they say they won’t. The roads were never this bad pre 2010.

It's what you get when the councils employ the cheapest bodge jobs to come along, whacker a bit of tarmac onto it and then move on, only to come back weeks later to do the same thing.

and why are councils doing that? Because they are and have been chronically underfunded by central government - the conservatives - for years. It’s what you voted for, guys!

Direct in council tax or funded centrally - it's all from the same source - the taxpayer! It's councils who need to become more efficient and not by cutting front line services.

[Randy Winkman]

Gordon Hill said:

The state of the roads mirrors the state of the country as a whole.

Strange coincidence is that today I actually stopped my car to check all of the tyres were OK when I drove through Orpington in SE London (near the station) because the rumbling/jiggling of the car and steering made me concerned. There was nothing wrong with it though and when I got on smoother road that was confirmed. It is terrible now.

[119]

Hoofy said:

bigothunter said:

Hoofy said:

Unsurprising. Every trip is like a fking Top Gear Challenge. Still, VED's gone up so this should be a problem of the past now.

VED is not a source of funds for road repairs.

I know that. It should be. It's just a spurious tax to raise money.

That goes towards road repairs.

[Bonefish Blues]

SlimJim16v said:

I don't understand. We all try and avoid potholes, but not when it involves hitting another car.

Agree. Sometimes you just have to anchor up to minimise potential damage. I'm usually grateful I wasn't on two wheels at the time.

[epom]

Randy Winkman said:

Gordon Hill said:

The state of the roads mirrors the state of the country as a whole.

Strange coincidence is that today I actually stopped my car to check all of the tyres were OK when I drove through Orpington in SE London (near the station) because the rumbling/jiggling of the car and steering made me concerned. There was nothing wrong with it though and when I got on smoother road that was confirmed. It is terrible now.

Sadly it’s the same in this side of the pond (Ireland) never before has so much tax/excise duty been paid, yet the roads have also been neglected to an extent some are quite literally disintegrating.

[bigothunter]

Zero Fuchs said:

Nomme de Plum said:

911Spanker said:

So why are you presuming the speed was excessive? I thought you knew something but obviously not. Just jumping to conclusions it would seem.

Not at all I just look at the damage. That is a significant amount of kinetic energy being dissipated. I'm confident you understand It is just physics.

Speed limits are a guide not a target.

My thoughts exactly from the photos.

When people say excessive, it's often interpreted as exceeding the limit but this was definitely excessive for the conditions (and possibly for the age of the driver) irrespective of the speed limit.

Very sad though, for all concerned.

Multiple variables make estimating speed almost impossible from the damage caused. Claim of excessive speed is bold indeed.

Take a look at the crash test video below. My guess (but nothing more) is that the impact speed was no more than 40mph.

Is 40mph too fast for our rural roads?

[Wacky Racer]

There were 4000 holes in Blackburn, Lancashire in 1967.

Wonder if they have been fixed?

[bigothunter]

Wacky Racer said:

There were 4000 holes in Blackburn, Lancashire in 1967.

Wonder if they have been fixed?

Folk lore as a youth was that "4000 holes" were 4000 dope smokers.

Nigel, London

[Zero Fuchs]

bigothunter said:

Zero Fuchs said:

Nomme de Plum said:

911Spanker said:

So why are you presuming the speed was excessive? I thought you knew something but obviously not. Just jumping to conclusions it would seem.

Not at all I just look at the damage. That is a significant amount of kinetic energy being dissipated. I'm confident you understand It is just physics.

Speed limits are a guide not a target.

My thoughts exactly from the photos.

When people say excessive, it's often interpreted as exceeding the limit but this was definitely excessive for the conditions (and possibly for the age of the driver) irrespective of the speed limit.

Very sad though, for all concerned.

Multiple variables make estimating speed almost impossible from the damage caused. Claim of excessive speed is bold indeed.

Take a look at the crash test video below. My guess (but nothing more) is that the impact speed was no more than 40mph.

Is 40mph too fast for our rural roads?

Accidents at 40mph, on a dry day, don't usually result in a car colliding with two other cars and then someone's house.

I don't think NdP or I were looking at the damage in isolation. We all know cars are designed to absorb as much energy as possible to optimise deceleration. This typical involves lots of damage. By the same token, how much momentum do you think you'd need to create that much damage after colliding with 2 cars, a house and end up a far distance from the house? 40nph?

[SlimJim16v]

Bonefish Blues said:

Agree. Sometimes you just have to anchor up to minimise potential damage. I'm usually grateful I wasn't on two wheels at the time.

A friend was on 2 wheels. He broke a few ribs and I think a collar bone.

[bigothunter]

Zero Fuchs said:

Accidents at 40mph, on a dry day, don't usually result in a car colliding with two other cars and then someone's house.

I don't think NdP or I were looking at the damage in isolation. We all know cars are designed to absorb as much energy as possible to optimise deceleration. This typical involves lots of damage. By the same token, how much momentum do you think you'd need to create that much damage after colliding with 2 cars, a house and end up a far distance from the house? 40nph?

Porsche driver swerved to avoid an unexpected pot hole. Appears he misjudged the manoeuvre. Whether wet or dry day is irrelevant.

Kinetic energy (0.5mv^2) not momentum (mv) is the important factor. From the damage incurred, I suspect impact speed did not exceed 40mph. There are multiple factors especially the effect of three-quarter impacts.

But we are merely speculating in the absence of reliable data.

[Super Sonic]

Nomme de Plum said:

There is only one person responsible and unfortunately he has died.

Nomme de Plum said:

PH seems to attract a few posters who like to point the finger. It is rarely so black and white in real life.

[bigothunter]

Super Sonic said:

Nomme de Plum said:

There is only one person responsible and unfortunately he has died.

Nomme de Plum said:

PH seems to attract a few posters who like to point the finger. It is rarely so black and white in real life.

[GT9]

georgeyboy12345 said:

What a load of cobblers, there are countries with much more extreme climates in terms of heat, cold and rainfall than the UK and these countries don’t have problems with potholes - because they have progressive governments that actually spend money on public services - you know, like roads.

Combination of factors is usually a good place to start.
Not repairing the roads is one factor.
Warmer/wetter winters is another.
The most destructive mechanism is repetitive freezing and thawing of water in the road surface, as it expands by nearly 10% each time it freezes.
If it did it just once and stayed frozen the whole winter that would be far less destructive than what we are getting here.
Freezing daily is like a jacking system to open up a cavity.
The water takes up a new position each time and then freezes again.
If the drainage is poor the water just sits there and does its thing.
We can keep dancing around the massive inconvenient elephant in the room that is getting bigger each year, or maybe it's time to face up to the fact that climate change is a factor in a whole host of things like this, and yes, we are poorly equipped to deal with it.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240124-climat...

[3GGy]

bigothunter said:

Multiple variables make estimating speed almost impossible from the damage caused. Claim of excessive speed is bold indeed.

Take a look at the crash test video below. My guess (but nothing more) is that the impact speed was no more than 40mph.

Is 40mph too fast for our rural roads?

Christ, that 56mph interior shot... Maybe the 40mph brigade are onto something.

[Zarco]

GT9 said:

georgeyboy12345 said:

What a load of cobblers, there are countries with much more extreme climates in terms of heat, cold and rainfall than the UK and these countries don’t have problems with potholes - because they have progressive governments that actually spend money on public services - you know, like roads.

Combination of factors is usually a good place to start.
Not repairing the roads is one factor.
Warmer/wetter winters is another.
The most destructive mechanism is repetitive freezing and thawing of water in the road surface, as it expands by nearly 10% each time it freezes.
If it did it just once and stayed frozen the whole winter that would be far less destructive than what we are getting here.
Freezing daily is like a jacking system to open up a cavity.
The water takes up a new position each time and then freezes again.
If the drainage is poor the water just sits there and does its thing.
We can keep dancing around the massive inconvenient elephant in the room that is getting bigger each year, or maybe it's time to face up to the fact that climate change is a factor in a whole host of things like this, and yes, we are poorly equipped to deal with it.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240124-climat...

I was listening to a podcast the other day and an expert said its actually wet weather rather than freeze/thaw. Hydraulic action of cars driving over potholes filled with water does the most damage. This does tally with the weather we've been having in the UK.

I was surprised as always thought it was the cold too.

[Forester1965]

Nomme de Plum said:

Who exactly would you prosecute? The Chief Executive, The Councillors maybe or perhaps the department that deals with road maintenance.

There's a statutory offence of corporate manslaughter (Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007). It'd be the organisation prosecuted rather than an individual. The penalty is a (large) fine.

I'm not sure this incident (or pothole issues more generally) would fit the criteria for the offence, though.

[RUI488]

I haven’t read the whole thread but perhaps it’s all rubbish and he lost control as he either wasn’t paying attention or was driving too fast for the conditions?

I can’t be the first to think blaming a pothole could be a convenient cover story…

[768]

RUI488 said:

I haven’t read the whole thread but perhaps it’s all rubbish and he lost control as he either wasn’t paying attention or was driving too fast for the conditions?

I can’t be the first to think blaming a pothole could be a convenient cover story…

Why would the police need a cover story?

[Bonefish Blues]

And there is at least one witness