Potholes - Porsche Driver Killed
Discussion
FMOB said:
That is awful.
I hope the Police can find clear evidence that the presence of the pothole was the root cause of the incident and the Council gets prosecuted for manslaughter.
I hope the Police can find clear evidence that the presence of the pothole was the root cause of the incident and the Council gets prosecuted for manslaughter.
_Neal_ said:
It's more like (as I mentioned earlier) an object in the road (let's say a bit of metal that's fallen off a scaffolding truck, or a half brick). The animal suddenly appears without warning - the object/pothole is just there - so it is a condition of the road, not a surprise like a cat running out. I don't disagree that people react in different ways, it if you're driving to the conditions (and can therefore stop in the distance you can see to be clear, on your side of the road) you should be able to stop before the object/pothole. If you're driving along on a clear road and a cat runs out without warning, it's very different as you say.
Highly unlikely. I knew a Police Officer who prosecuted an elderly granny for causing a head on collision. The elderly woman’s excuse… she served into the wrong side of the road to avoid a cat.The law said that’s no excuse for swerving into oncoming traffic.
I’m no Lawyer. But I’d imagine the Prosecution will say the life of the victim was more important than your wheel or supension.
Edited by Mr Miata on Monday 6th May 17:00
That’s just it isn’t it?
You might have a case for suing the council for damage to your wheel (or idea it had already been reported IIRC) but the correct course of action is still to stay on your side of the road and suck it up that your wheel might get damaged u less it is overwhelmingly clear that swerving to avoid the pothole is safe.
If you stayed in your lane, the damage to your wheel caused the car to spin and you hit someone then plausibly there might be a case against the council for the injuries and secondary damage caused I imagine.
Of course travelling at speed gives you less time to react and make a rational judgement that swerving was a potentially dangerous manouevre so maybe that is a factor too.
But to swerve is a very human reaction and why the whole thing is just tragic.
You might have a case for suing the council for damage to your wheel (or idea it had already been reported IIRC) but the correct course of action is still to stay on your side of the road and suck it up that your wheel might get damaged u less it is overwhelmingly clear that swerving to avoid the pothole is safe.
If you stayed in your lane, the damage to your wheel caused the car to spin and you hit someone then plausibly there might be a case against the council for the injuries and secondary damage caused I imagine.
Of course travelling at speed gives you less time to react and make a rational judgement that swerving was a potentially dangerous manouevre so maybe that is a factor too.
But to swerve is a very human reaction and why the whole thing is just tragic.
Pica-Pica said:
740EVTORQUES said:
But to swerve is a very human reaction and why the whole thing is just tragic.
But, swerving is panicking, driving is about observation and planning, not panicking.I'm in awe of all these Pistonheaders who'd leave double the recommended distance from the car in front in good conditions on a good B road at one of the few known overtaking spots in a Porsche GT2 whilst simultaneously able to see through the car in front and spot a pothole from 400 yards whilst sitting a few inches from the road surface.
Forester1965 said:
I'm in awe of all these Pistonheaders who'd leave double the recommended distance from the car in front in good conditions on a good B road at one of the few known overtaking spots in a Porsche GT2 whilst simultaneously able to see through the car in front and spot a pothole from 400 yards whilst sitting a few inches from the road surface.
Yeah, I have to say that the armchair view compared to the drivers seat view seems remarkably similar to some of the experts on here. Edited by Heaveho on Monday 6th May 22:25
Edited by Heaveho on Monday 6th May 22:26
BunkMoreland said:
911Spanker said:
FMOB said:
lord trumpton said:
Often, potholes form from previous s
tey pothole repairs don't poorly by lazy fat bd contractors who dump a bit of tarmac in and fk off.
This is part of it, when was the last time you saw the repair sealed with hot bitumen not to mention utility companies whacking holes in roads when ever needed and making the same repair the council does.tey pothole repairs don't poorly by lazy fat bd contractors who dump a bit of tarmac in and fk off.Seen this happen on a brand new bit of road within a week of it being laid, instant pothole.
Reflects the attitude of councils too.
I will make it law that road repair companies have to warrant their repairs for a minimum of 10 years. And if a repair fails inside that time the warranty timeframe resets. i.e Repair fails at 5 years old. Warranty runs from that point of repair for a further 10 years .
Failure to comply with that warranty obligation will result in your company being blacklisted for 20 years from all road repairs country wide. I'd also blacklist the company owners and directors for the same time frame from working in the construction industry to avoid them starting up a new company to get round it.
(As an slight aside. The reason car drivers are instructed by the highway code to give cyclists a fairly wide berth when passing them, is because a bike may have to dodge a pothole which can as we all know be quite substantial! And in worst case scenario may throw the rider off their bike!)
Edited by BunkMoreland on Monday 6th May 16:32
The repairs I've seen round here on our rural roads tend by like a drive-by repair - then pull up next to it, shovel a few loads of tarmac into the hole whilst the driver eats a bacon sandwich and then they all f
k off handy.The repair starts to fail the day after a bit of rain.
No doubt they charge top dollar too. Lazy fat t
tsHeaveho said:
Forester1965 said:
I'm in awe of all these Pistonheaders who'd leave double the recommended distance from the car in front in good conditions on a good B road at one of the few known overtaking spots in a Porsche GT2 whilst simultaneously able to see through the car in front and spot a pothole from 400 yards whilst sitting a few inches from the road surface.
Yeah, I have to say that the armchair view compared to the drivers seat view seems remarkably similar to some of the experts on here. I can see alot of, take it easy and don't risk other road users here.
Sicksilinda said:
This is one major reason why I don’t drive anywhere without Waze running nowadays. RIP.
I drove the very road where this happened, in my own Porsche, a week or so before this accident, so this struck close to home. On that drive, I had Waze running and the number of pothole warnings was insane. As soon as I passed one, another was pinging up. That used to be a good road to drive, but it's ruined now, as are so many, by the complete lack of road maintenance. Of course at this stage we have no idea what actually caused the accident, and suggestion otherwise is simply conjecture, but decent road surfaces surely can only help safety. Sadly it seems we, as a country, can't afford them any more...
Mr Miata said:
FMOB said:
That is awful.
I hope the Police can find clear evidence that the presence of the pothole was the root cause of the incident and the Council gets prosecuted for manslaughter.
I hope the Police can find clear evidence that the presence of the pothole was the root cause of the incident and the Council gets prosecuted for manslaughter.
_Neal_ said:
It's more like (as I mentioned earlier) an object in the road (let's say a bit of metal that's fallen off a scaffolding truck, or a half brick). The animal suddenly appears without warning - the object/pothole is just there - so it is a condition of the road, not a surprise like a cat running out. I don't disagree that people react in different ways, it if you're driving to the conditions (and can therefore stop in the distance you can see to be clear, on your side of the road) you should be able to stop before the object/pothole. If you're driving along on a clear road and a cat runs out without warning, it's very different as you say.
Highly unlikely. I knew a Police Officer who prosecuted an elderly granny for causing a head on collision. The elderly woman’s excuse… she served into the wrong side of the road to avoid a cat.The law said that’s no excuse for swerving into oncoming traffic.
I’m no Lawyer. But I’d imagine the Prosecution will say the life of the victim was more important than your wheel or supension.
Edited by Mr Miata on Monday 6th May 17:00
Forester1965 said:
I'm in awe of all these Pistonheaders who'd leave double the recommended distance from the car in front in good conditions on a good B road at one of the few known overtaking spots in a Porsche GT2 whilst simultaneously able to see through the car in front and spot a pothole from 400 yards whilst sitting a few inches from the road surface.
Not sure where anyone has said he should leave double the recommended distance. Just that he should have been driving to the conditions, being able to stop in the distance he can see to be clear. How is that controversial (overtaking spot, Porsche GT2 or otherwise)? Obviously I'm not saying I necessarily would have been driving perfectly in his position, but equally the pothole may not have contributed to the accident. And likening a pothole to an animal running out is, to my mind at least, wrong.
This story is basically "tragic accident occurs near pothole".
biggbn said:
Could there be a solution of a super strong plate of some sort bolted through to the road as a temporary fix for potholes? I'm sure I've seen 'plates' used in roadworks etc...?
Its called a road plate funnily enough.We'd need a lot of them! They're around 30-40mm thick so are a bump in themselves. Traffic would move them after a while I'd expect (especially in a NSL).
The great irony of this thread is that everyone saying how bad the pothole situation is makes this more likely to be the driver own fault.
Yes, the road are in atrocious condition but we are all well aware of this and so should be driving with 'I might encounter a craterous pothole around the next bend' in our heads. If you want to make an argument that having to scan the road constantly for potholes is a distraction and making the roads less safe I'd be right there with you but, as things stand, you know the danger and should never be surprised - and certainly not the point where you panic and crash - by a pothole. It's terrible that this person has died, that's obviously an extreme and tragic consequence for their poor judgement but the main reason the crash is likely on them.
Yes, the road are in atrocious condition but we are all well aware of this and so should be driving with 'I might encounter a craterous pothole around the next bend' in our heads. If you want to make an argument that having to scan the road constantly for potholes is a distraction and making the roads less safe I'd be right there with you but, as things stand, you know the danger and should never be surprised - and certainly not the point where you panic and crash - by a pothole. It's terrible that this person has died, that's obviously an extreme and tragic consequence for their poor judgement but the main reason the crash is likely on them.
Hugo Stiglitz said:
Heaveho said:
Forester1965 said:
I'm in awe of all these Pistonheaders who'd leave double the recommended distance from the car in front in good conditions on a good B road at one of the few known overtaking spots in a Porsche GT2 whilst simultaneously able to see through the car in front and spot a pothole from 400 yards whilst sitting a few inches from the road surface.
Yeah, I have to say that the armchair view compared to the drivers seat view seems remarkably similar to some of the experts on here. I can see alot of, take it easy and don't risk other road users here.
Edited by Heaveho on Monday 6th May 22:23
Olivera said:
_Neal_ said:
Just that he should have been driving to the conditions, being able to stop in the distance he can see to be clear.
Being able to 'stop in the distance you can see clear' refers to road users and pedestrians, not the minutiae of the road surface.OddCat said:
Hugo Stiglitz said:
Why?
When's the last time you swerved into an oncoming car to avoid a pothole travelling at normal road speeds.
Surely you wouldn't have to swerve and avoid the pothole if it had been travelling at normal road speeds. You'd just need to keep up with it to avoid it.When's the last time you swerved into an oncoming car to avoid a pothole travelling at normal road speeds.
It would be nice if potholes stood there with a big sign saying 'danger pothole', but they don't which is why much slower stuff like cyclists fall into them and sadly get killed. The other thing is, especially round my way, potholes tend to follow the course of previous shoddy roadworks by utility companies so you can get more than 4 or 5 in a haphazard sort of row.
911Spanker said:
Olivera said:
_Neal_ said:
Just that he should have been driving to the conditions, being able to stop in the distance he can see to be clear.
Being able to 'stop in the distance you can see clear' refers to road users and pedestrians, not the minutiae of the road surface.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff