Lone accident - can you get points?
Discussion
Friend of mine rang to say he crashed his car this evening, written off by sound of it.
Apparently they (he had 2 or 3 of his friends in car) popped out to get Macs or some other crap food (he's youngish) and driving back round (unlit?) country road (60 limit) he left the road on bend (there were chevrons to indicate bend) such that car flipped on its side.
No one was badly hurt, more shock. Medics arrived to check. Police came and from what I know so far they asked my friend how fast was he going?
He said between 50 plus but not over the limit
(He is quite sensible, does not drink so even if he was breathalysed it would not come into it).
They then asked what speed he was doing round the corner to which he told them he didn't know, as he rarely glanced at speedo when going round bends.
Now the interesting point which led me to post. They told him that the bend had only 'just' been resurfaced (it was also damp with drizzle this evening) and concluded he must have been driving too fast, and they would, as he didn't know his speed on the corner, do him for driving without due care and attention.
If it goes to court they said he would get 8 points or could lower it with a driving awareness test or whatever it's called.
Is this procedure correct, can they put in a report which is basically imo an assumption? No checks were made on the vehicle apparently, no measurements taken etc. Should there be warning of new tarmac? (don't know of course if there was).
What advice would the 'blue' boys on here give my friend?
Apparently they (he had 2 or 3 of his friends in car) popped out to get Macs or some other crap food (he's youngish) and driving back round (unlit?) country road (60 limit) he left the road on bend (there were chevrons to indicate bend) such that car flipped on its side.
No one was badly hurt, more shock. Medics arrived to check. Police came and from what I know so far they asked my friend how fast was he going?
He said between 50 plus but not over the limit
(He is quite sensible, does not drink so even if he was breathalysed it would not come into it).
They then asked what speed he was doing round the corner to which he told them he didn't know, as he rarely glanced at speedo when going round bends.
Now the interesting point which led me to post. They told him that the bend had only 'just' been resurfaced (it was also damp with drizzle this evening) and concluded he must have been driving too fast, and they would, as he didn't know his speed on the corner, do him for driving without due care and attention.
If it goes to court they said he would get 8 points or could lower it with a driving awareness test or whatever it's called.
Is this procedure correct, can they put in a report which is basically imo an assumption? No checks were made on the vehicle apparently, no measurements taken etc. Should there be warning of new tarmac? (don't know of course if there was).
What advice would the 'blue' boys on here give my friend?
If they "do the maths" and look at skid marks, the trajectory of the car and where it ended up it's quite possible that they could conclude that he was going over the limit and that that is what caused the incident. There are trained investigators to undertake this kind of thing.
However, in my experience in single vehicle accidents where no-one is hurt generally the plod accept that loss of the vehicle is punishment enough and may decide to take no further action in respect to the driving, unless there is overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing.
Remember that we may not be getting the whole truth from "your mate"
and there may have been evidence at the scene that pointed to an offence, hence the warning given by the police that attended.
However, in my experience in single vehicle accidents where no-one is hurt generally the plod accept that loss of the vehicle is punishment enough and may decide to take no further action in respect to the driving, unless there is overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing.
Remember that we may not be getting the whole truth from "your mate"
and there may have been evidence at the scene that pointed to an offence, hence the warning given by the police that attended. Edited by WeirdNeville on Friday 27th April 02:08
dandarez said:
Friend of mine rang to say he crashed his car this evening, written off by sound of it.
Apparently they (he had 2 or 3 of his friends in car) popped out to get Macs or some other crap food (he's youngish) and driving back round (unlit?) country road (60 limit) he left the road on bend (there were chevrons to indicate bend) such that car flipped on its side.
No one was badly hurt, more shock. Medics arrived to check. Police came and from what I know so far they asked my friend how fast was he going?
He said between 50 plus but not over the limit
(He is quite sensible, does not drink so even if he was breathalysed it would not come into it).
They then asked what speed he was doing round the corner to which he told them he didn't know, as he rarely glanced at speedo when going round bends.
Now the interesting point which led me to post. They told him that the bend had only 'just' been resurfaced (it was also damp with drizzle this evening) and concluded he must have been driving too fast, and they would, as he didn't know his speed on the corner, do him for driving without due care and attention.
If it goes to court they said he would get 8 points or could lower it with a driving awareness test or whatever it's called.
Is this procedure correct, can they put in a report which is basically imo an assumption? No checks were made on the vehicle apparently, no measurements taken etc. Should there be warning of new tarmac? (don't know of course if there was).
What advice would the 'blue' boys on here give my friend?
Apparently they (he had 2 or 3 of his friends in car) popped out to get Macs or some other crap food (he's youngish) and driving back round (unlit?) country road (60 limit) he left the road on bend (there were chevrons to indicate bend) such that car flipped on its side.
No one was badly hurt, more shock. Medics arrived to check. Police came and from what I know so far they asked my friend how fast was he going?
He said between 50 plus but not over the limit
(He is quite sensible, does not drink so even if he was breathalysed it would not come into it).
They then asked what speed he was doing round the corner to which he told them he didn't know, as he rarely glanced at speedo when going round bends.
Now the interesting point which led me to post. They told him that the bend had only 'just' been resurfaced (it was also damp with drizzle this evening) and concluded he must have been driving too fast, and they would, as he didn't know his speed on the corner, do him for driving without due care and attention.
If it goes to court they said he would get 8 points or could lower it with a driving awareness test or whatever it's called.
Is this procedure correct, can they put in a report which is basically imo an assumption? No checks were made on the vehicle apparently, no measurements taken etc. Should there be warning of new tarmac? (don't know of course if there was).
What advice would the 'blue' boys on here give my friend?
There is a general presumption in driving that you shouldn't have any collisions. If you do (even a single vehicle one), if there are no special conditions concerning the collision, that leaves error by you as the cause.
Did anyone else using the road come off it at or near that point, or even look like doing so ?
A little while back, a man was unfortunately involved in a fatality collision with some pedal cyclists. The surface was particularly nasty & slippery because of ice. Despite the death of a couple of the cyclists he wasn't charged because it was judged that there were exceptional circumstances with the conditions. In effect it could have happened to anyone.
If there are not exceptional circumstances in your friends case, it is quite possible that he be summonsed for DWDCA if the officer deems it appropriate.
Wilkinson at 5.50 said:
"In the absence of any explanation by the defendant, if the only conclusion which is possible to draw is that the defendant was negligent or had departed from what a reasonably prudent and confident driver would have done in the circumstances, a court should convict"
There is also a 'public interest' angle to be considered by the CPS. They don't have to prosecute for every minor transgression, they will only do so where they believe it is in the public interest to do so. Not everyone who has a minor collision is prosecuted, even where others are involved. It depends on the adjudged degree of blameworthiness or extent of the error.
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 27th April 07:07
Now the interesting point which led me to post. They told him that the bend had only 'just' been resurfaced (it was also damp with drizzle this evening)
I have been told some new tarmac surfaces take a while to wear in and provide enough grip nowadays due to the way the tarmac is made and laid.
As said above though it depends on if your friend is telling the whole truth.Was he really only going so fast,how far of the road did the car end up on its side,how much damage to the car etc.The limit may have been 60 but due to the conditions was that a safe speed to be doing is one thought.
I have been told some new tarmac surfaces take a while to wear in and provide enough grip nowadays due to the way the tarmac is made and laid.
As said above though it depends on if your friend is telling the whole truth.Was he really only going so fast,how far of the road did the car end up on its side,how much damage to the car etc.The limit may have been 60 but due to the conditions was that a safe speed to be doing is one thought.
This goes back to J.J. Leeming. New Tarmac "leeches" an oily deposit on to the surface which when wet is exceedingly slippy. Even worse if the wheels do lock they make no noise but do make marks on the road. I'd go over to the ABD web site and look up Leeming from the Index page. . He was a road engineer who belived their were reasons behind accidents beyond the usual Speed and inattention. In the case of this type of road surface He "skimmed" an amount off the surface of a road this happened to in order to restore grip. I now look for new road surface with the marks on it and take exceptional care around it.
Edited by telecat on Friday 27th April 09:16
As Von & DVD have said.
If a driver can give no good account as to how a collision occurred, yet there was no-one else involved and no other contributory factors, then the facts of the case alone can lead to an 'irresistible inference' that it resulted from careless driving. (Rabjohns v Burgar 1971)
My own limited experience of this subject is that the interface between tyre rubber and newly laid SMA provides a decent coefficient of friction. Where newly laid SMA performs relatively badly is when you start to skid, because the heat generated causes the surface layer of binding agent to liquefy thus reducing the coefficient.
In some cases this loss of friction is addressed by adding grit or by 'water re-texturing'. I'm sure others will have much more expertees on this subject than me, and will be able to provide more qualified information.
I have conducted skid tests on new laid dry surface SMA, which showed a relatively high deceleration (~0.9g) required to cause the wheels to lock. Once wheels were locked the coefficient of sliding friction reduced to about 0.5, whereas an established surface would be expected to produce a coefficient of about 0.7 on locked wheel braking. ABS brakes maintained a pretty high deceleration efficiency throughout of ~0.80g to 0.85g.
What we have found (on the SMA surfaces we checked) there wasn’t a huge difference in sliding friction between a wet and a dry surface.
My conclusion from my own tests is that it takes a lot to lose grip on new laid SMA, perhaps even more than on an established surface, but once grip is lost and you are skidding, then your road position and therefore your opportunity to regain control will be lost much more quickly.
If a driver can give no good account as to how a collision occurred, yet there was no-one else involved and no other contributory factors, then the facts of the case alone can lead to an 'irresistible inference' that it resulted from careless driving. (Rabjohns v Burgar 1971)
tps said:
Now the interesting point which led me to post. They told him that the bend had only 'just' been resurfaced (it was also damp with drizzle this evening)
I have been told some new tarmac surfaces take a while to wear in and provide enough grip nowadays due to the way the tarmac is made and laid.
As said above though it depends on if your friend is telling the whole truth.Was he really only going so fast,how far of the road did the car end up on its side,how much damage to the car etc.The limit may have been 60 but due to the conditions was that a safe speed to be doing is one thought.
I have been told some new tarmac surfaces take a while to wear in and provide enough grip nowadays due to the way the tarmac is made and laid.
As said above though it depends on if your friend is telling the whole truth.Was he really only going so fast,how far of the road did the car end up on its side,how much damage to the car etc.The limit may have been 60 but due to the conditions was that a safe speed to be doing is one thought.
My own limited experience of this subject is that the interface between tyre rubber and newly laid SMA provides a decent coefficient of friction. Where newly laid SMA performs relatively badly is when you start to skid, because the heat generated causes the surface layer of binding agent to liquefy thus reducing the coefficient.
In some cases this loss of friction is addressed by adding grit or by 'water re-texturing'. I'm sure others will have much more expertees on this subject than me, and will be able to provide more qualified information.
I have conducted skid tests on new laid dry surface SMA, which showed a relatively high deceleration (~0.9g) required to cause the wheels to lock. Once wheels were locked the coefficient of sliding friction reduced to about 0.5, whereas an established surface would be expected to produce a coefficient of about 0.7 on locked wheel braking. ABS brakes maintained a pretty high deceleration efficiency throughout of ~0.80g to 0.85g.
What we have found (on the SMA surfaces we checked) there wasn’t a huge difference in sliding friction between a wet and a dry surface.
My conclusion from my own tests is that it takes a lot to lose grip on new laid SMA, perhaps even more than on an established surface, but once grip is lost and you are skidding, then your road position and therefore your opportunity to regain control will be lost much more quickly.
IaHa said:
As Von & DVD have said.
If a driver can give no good account as to how a collision occurred, yet there was no-one else involved and no other contributory factors, then the facts of the case alone can lead to an 'irresistible inference' that it resulted from careless driving. (Rabjohns v Burgar 1971)
Surely that's dependant on the Type of surface laid?? There has been citicism of various authorites who laid different types of SMA that didn't meet requirements and were slippy when wet causing accidents.
My own limited experience of this subject is that the interface between tyre rubber and newly laid SMA provides a decent coefficient of friction. Where newly laid SMA performs relatively badly is when you start to skid, because the heat generated causes the surface layer of binding agent to liquefy thus reducing the coefficient.
In some cases this loss of friction is addressed by adding grit or by 'water re-texturing'. I'm sure others will have much more expertees on this subject than me, and will be able to provide more qualified information.
I have conducted skid tests on new laid dry surface SMA, which showed a relatively high deceleration (~0.9g) required to cause the wheels to lock. Once wheels were locked the coefficient of sliding friction reduced to about 0.5, whereas an established surface would be expected to produce a coefficient of about 0.7 on locked wheel braking. ABS brakes maintained a pretty high deceleration efficiency throughout of ~0.80g to 0.85g.
What we have found (on the SMA surfaces we checked) there wasn’t a huge difference in sliding friction between a wet and a dry surface.
My conclusion from my own tests is that it takes a lot to lose grip on new laid SMA, perhaps even more than on an established surface, but once grip is lost and you are skidding, then your road position and therefore your opportunity to regain control will be lost much more quickly.
If a driver can give no good account as to how a collision occurred, yet there was no-one else involved and no other contributory factors, then the facts of the case alone can lead to an 'irresistible inference' that it resulted from careless driving. (Rabjohns v Burgar 1971)
tps said:
Now the interesting point which led me to post. They told him that the bend had only 'just' been resurfaced (it was also damp with drizzle this evening)
I have been told some new tarmac surfaces take a while to wear in and provide enough grip nowadays due to the way the tarmac is made and laid.
As said above though it depends on if your friend is telling the whole truth.Was he really only going so fast,how far of the road did the car end up on its side,how much damage to the car etc.The limit may have been 60 but due to the conditions was that a safe speed to be doing is one thought.
I have been told some new tarmac surfaces take a while to wear in and provide enough grip nowadays due to the way the tarmac is made and laid.
As said above though it depends on if your friend is telling the whole truth.Was he really only going so fast,how far of the road did the car end up on its side,how much damage to the car etc.The limit may have been 60 but due to the conditions was that a safe speed to be doing is one thought.
Surely that's dependant on the Type of surface laid?? There has been citicism of various authorites who laid different types of SMA that didn't meet requirements and were slippy when wet causing accidents.
My own limited experience of this subject is that the interface between tyre rubber and newly laid SMA provides a decent coefficient of friction. Where newly laid SMA performs relatively badly is when you start to skid, because the heat generated causes the surface layer of binding agent to liquefy thus reducing the coefficient.
In some cases this loss of friction is addressed by adding grit or by 'water re-texturing'. I'm sure others will have much more expertees on this subject than me, and will be able to provide more qualified information.
I have conducted skid tests on new laid dry surface SMA, which showed a relatively high deceleration (~0.9g) required to cause the wheels to lock. Once wheels were locked the coefficient of sliding friction reduced to about 0.5, whereas an established surface would be expected to produce a coefficient of about 0.7 on locked wheel braking. ABS brakes maintained a pretty high deceleration efficiency throughout of ~0.80g to 0.85g.
What we have found (on the SMA surfaces we checked) there wasn’t a huge difference in sliding friction between a wet and a dry surface.
My conclusion from my own tests is that it takes a lot to lose grip on new laid SMA, perhaps even more than on an established surface, but once grip is lost and you are skidding, then your road position and therefore your opportunity to regain control will be lost much more quickly.
telecat said:
IaHa said:
As Von & DVD have said.
If a driver can give no good account as to how a collision occurred, yet there was no-one else involved and no other contributory factors, then the facts of the case alone can lead to an 'irresistible inference' that it resulted from careless driving. (Rabjohns v Burgar 1971)
My own limited experience of this subject is that the interface between tyre rubber and newly laid SMA provides a decent coefficient of friction. Where newly laid SMA performs relatively badly is when you start to skid, because the heat generated causes the surface layer of binding agent to liquefy thus reducing the coefficient.
In some cases this loss of friction is addressed by adding grit or by 'water re-texturing'. I'm sure others will have much more expertees on this subject than me, and will be able to provide more qualified information.
I have conducted skid tests on new laid dry surface SMA, which showed a relatively high deceleration (~0.9g) required to cause the wheels to lock. Once wheels were locked the coefficient of sliding friction reduced to about 0.5, whereas an established surface would be expected to produce a coefficient of about 0.7 on locked wheel braking. ABS brakes maintained a pretty high deceleration efficiency throughout of ~0.80g to 0.85g.
What we have found (on the SMA surfaces we checked) there wasn’t a huge difference in sliding friction between a wet and a dry surface.
My conclusion from my own tests is that it takes a lot to lose grip on new laid SMA, perhaps even more than on an established surface, but once grip is lost and you are skidding, then your road position and therefore your opportunity to regain control will be lost much more quickly.
If a driver can give no good account as to how a collision occurred, yet there was no-one else involved and no other contributory factors, then the facts of the case alone can lead to an 'irresistible inference' that it resulted from careless driving. (Rabjohns v Burgar 1971)
tps said:
Now the interesting point which led me to post. They told him that the bend had only 'just' been resurfaced (it was also damp with drizzle this evening)
I have been told some new tarmac surfaces take a while to wear in and provide enough grip nowadays due to the way the tarmac is made and laid.
As said above though it depends on if your friend is telling the whole truth.Was he really only going so fast,how far of the road did the car end up on its side,how much damage to the car etc.The limit may have been 60 but due to the conditions was that a safe speed to be doing is one thought.
I have been told some new tarmac surfaces take a while to wear in and provide enough grip nowadays due to the way the tarmac is made and laid.
As said above though it depends on if your friend is telling the whole truth.Was he really only going so fast,how far of the road did the car end up on its side,how much damage to the car etc.The limit may have been 60 but due to the conditions was that a safe speed to be doing is one thought.
My own limited experience of this subject is that the interface between tyre rubber and newly laid SMA provides a decent coefficient of friction. Where newly laid SMA performs relatively badly is when you start to skid, because the heat generated causes the surface layer of binding agent to liquefy thus reducing the coefficient.
In some cases this loss of friction is addressed by adding grit or by 'water re-texturing'. I'm sure others will have much more expertees on this subject than me, and will be able to provide more qualified information.
I have conducted skid tests on new laid dry surface SMA, which showed a relatively high deceleration (~0.9g) required to cause the wheels to lock. Once wheels were locked the coefficient of sliding friction reduced to about 0.5, whereas an established surface would be expected to produce a coefficient of about 0.7 on locked wheel braking. ABS brakes maintained a pretty high deceleration efficiency throughout of ~0.80g to 0.85g.
What we have found (on the SMA surfaces we checked) there wasn’t a huge difference in sliding friction between a wet and a dry surface.
My conclusion from my own tests is that it takes a lot to lose grip on new laid SMA, perhaps even more than on an established surface, but once grip is lost and you are skidding, then your road position and therefore your opportunity to regain control will be lost much more quickly.
Surely that's dependant on the Type of surface laid?? There has been citicism of various authorites who laid different types of SMA that didn't meet requirements and were slippy when wet causing accidents.
I'm not convinced that sliding friction alters much on new SMA whether wet or dry.
What will alter significantly is the point at which grip is lost, and I think that can vary quite a bit depending on how the SMA is laid. Obviously that varies on ordinary established road surfaces too.
Normal driving shouldn't cause us to get too close to any of these grip loss levels.
IaHa said:
telecat said:
IaHa said:
As Von & DVD have said.
If a driver can give no good account as to how a collision occurred, yet there was no-one else involved and no other contributory factors, then the facts of the case alone can lead to an 'irresistible inference' that it resulted from careless driving. (Rabjohns v Burgar 1971)
My own limited experience of this subject is that the interface between tyre rubber and newly laid SMA provides a decent coefficient of friction. Where newly laid SMA performs relatively badly is when you start to skid, because the heat generated causes the surface layer of binding agent to liquefy thus reducing the coefficient.
In some cases this loss of friction is addressed by adding grit or by 'water re-texturing'. I'm sure others will have much more expertees on this subject than me, and will be able to provide more qualified information.
I have conducted skid tests on new laid dry surface SMA, which showed a relatively high deceleration (~0.9g) required to cause the wheels to lock. Once wheels were locked the coefficient of sliding friction reduced to about 0.5, whereas an established surface would be expected to produce a coefficient of about 0.7 on locked wheel braking. ABS brakes maintained a pretty high deceleration efficiency throughout of ~0.80g to 0.85g.
What we have found (on the SMA surfaces we checked) there wasn’t a huge difference in sliding friction between a wet and a dry surface.
My conclusion from my own tests is that it takes a lot to lose grip on new laid SMA, perhaps even more than on an established surface, but once grip is lost and you are skidding, then your road position and therefore your opportunity to regain control will be lost much more quickly.
If a driver can give no good account as to how a collision occurred, yet there was no-one else involved and no other contributory factors, then the facts of the case alone can lead to an 'irresistible inference' that it resulted from careless driving. (Rabjohns v Burgar 1971)
tps said:
Now the interesting point which led me to post. They told him that the bend had only 'just' been resurfaced (it was also damp with drizzle this evening)
I have been told some new tarmac surfaces take a while to wear in and provide enough grip nowadays due to the way the tarmac is made and laid.
As said above though it depends on if your friend is telling the whole truth.Was he really only going so fast,how far of the road did the car end up on its side,how much damage to the car etc.The limit may have been 60 but due to the conditions was that a safe speed to be doing is one thought.
I have been told some new tarmac surfaces take a while to wear in and provide enough grip nowadays due to the way the tarmac is made and laid.
As said above though it depends on if your friend is telling the whole truth.Was he really only going so fast,how far of the road did the car end up on its side,how much damage to the car etc.The limit may have been 60 but due to the conditions was that a safe speed to be doing is one thought.
My own limited experience of this subject is that the interface between tyre rubber and newly laid SMA provides a decent coefficient of friction. Where newly laid SMA performs relatively badly is when you start to skid, because the heat generated causes the surface layer of binding agent to liquefy thus reducing the coefficient.
In some cases this loss of friction is addressed by adding grit or by 'water re-texturing'. I'm sure others will have much more expertees on this subject than me, and will be able to provide more qualified information.
I have conducted skid tests on new laid dry surface SMA, which showed a relatively high deceleration (~0.9g) required to cause the wheels to lock. Once wheels were locked the coefficient of sliding friction reduced to about 0.5, whereas an established surface would be expected to produce a coefficient of about 0.7 on locked wheel braking. ABS brakes maintained a pretty high deceleration efficiency throughout of ~0.80g to 0.85g.
What we have found (on the SMA surfaces we checked) there wasn’t a huge difference in sliding friction between a wet and a dry surface.
My conclusion from my own tests is that it takes a lot to lose grip on new laid SMA, perhaps even more than on an established surface, but once grip is lost and you are skidding, then your road position and therefore your opportunity to regain control will be lost much more quickly.
Surely that's dependant on the Type of surface laid?? There has been citicism of various authorites who laid different types of SMA that didn't meet requirements and were slippy when wet causing accidents.
I'm not convinced that sliding friction alters much on new SMA whether wet or dry.
What will alter significantly is the point at which grip is lost, and I think that can vary quite a bit depending on how the SMA is laid. Obviously that varies on ordinary established road surfaces too.
Normal driving shouldn't cause us to get too close to any of these grip loss levels.
Have you had a look at J.J. Leeming's pge on ABD??
IaHa's comments above are in accord with findings elsewhere on SMA according my understanding.
The comment re sliding grip wet/dry being very similar is totally correct.
I think there were some findings that very close to the point of sliding that the SMA had a greater propensity to leach and thus the ultimate grip before sliding was marginally lower, but the difference was so small as to be negligible.
One thing I do notice in our county is that once SMA is laid it very very quickly becomes covered with what appear to be 'skid marks.'
My drive was laid with SMA and I got what appeared to be an 18" long curved 'skid mark' on the surface even though I knew there had been no such incident. What caused the mark was my car being reversed on with a fair degree of lock on, and of course with wide tyres one does get a certain amount of slide at various points across the tread width. These marks cannot have been due to rubber deposit, must have been the leaching effect.
Does that suggest that SMA is more likely to show such an effect and thus show a marked reduction in grip? I don't know to be honest.
The comment re sliding grip wet/dry being very similar is totally correct.
I think there were some findings that very close to the point of sliding that the SMA had a greater propensity to leach and thus the ultimate grip before sliding was marginally lower, but the difference was so small as to be negligible.
One thing I do notice in our county is that once SMA is laid it very very quickly becomes covered with what appear to be 'skid marks.'
My drive was laid with SMA and I got what appeared to be an 18" long curved 'skid mark' on the surface even though I knew there had been no such incident. What caused the mark was my car being reversed on with a fair degree of lock on, and of course with wide tyres one does get a certain amount of slide at various points across the tread width. These marks cannot have been due to rubber deposit, must have been the leaching effect.
Does that suggest that SMA is more likely to show such an effect and thus show a marked reduction in grip? I don't know to be honest.
When I wrote mine off in bad weather the officer (while I was laid out on a board in the ambulance said "Well, we're not convinced that your driving was of the standard expected..." and I thought 'here we go...' but then he continued to say '..but you look like you've had enough punishment for one day so we'll be on our way'.
Least he had a sense of humour.
Least he had a sense of humour.
dandarez said:
What advice would the 'blue' boys on here give my friend?
He crashed. That gives rise to a driving error. There may be mitigation about the new road surface. If he had been travelling at a reasonable speed for the conditions and the new road surface, they would not be interviewing him.
He is in an invidious position. Crashing a car usually means an error has been made by the driver unless there was a vehicle defect or he can persuade the court that the road surface was dangerously inadequate for its purpose at that time. Sliding on Ice is unfortunate in many cases but still has an element of driver error around it. The new road surface is no different.
There are 3 types of collisions
1. The accident = Very rare such as tree bracnch falling and landing on a passing vehicle
2. The deliberate = Police tactics to stop a vehicle that will not or sometimes within an acrimonious relationship break up where she deliberately drives into his car with hers.
3. The inevitable = what most collisions come under. Its just a matter of when, either through bad technique or inattention caused by a distraction and not driving the vehicle.
Edited by mg6b on Friday 27th April 13:55
Flat in Fifth said:
IaHa's comments above are in accord with findings elsewhere on SMA according my understanding.
The comment re sliding grip wet/dry being very similar is totally correct.
I think there were some findings that very close to the point of sliding that the SMA had a greater propensity to leach and thus the ultimate grip before sliding was marginally lower, but the difference was so small as to be negligible.
One thing I do notice in our county is that once SMA is laid it very very quickly becomes covered with what appear to be 'skid marks.'
My drive was laid with SMA and I got what appeared to be an 18" long curved 'skid mark' on the surface even though I knew there had been no such incident. What caused the mark was my car being reversed on with a fair degree of lock on, and of course with wide tyres one does get a certain amount of slide at various points across the tread width. These marks cannot have been due to rubber deposit, must have been the leaching effect.
Does that suggest that SMA is more likely to show such an effect and thus show a marked reduction in grip? I don't know to be honest.
The comment re sliding grip wet/dry being very similar is totally correct.
I think there were some findings that very close to the point of sliding that the SMA had a greater propensity to leach and thus the ultimate grip before sliding was marginally lower, but the difference was so small as to be negligible.
One thing I do notice in our county is that once SMA is laid it very very quickly becomes covered with what appear to be 'skid marks.'
My drive was laid with SMA and I got what appeared to be an 18" long curved 'skid mark' on the surface even though I knew there had been no such incident. What caused the mark was my car being reversed on with a fair degree of lock on, and of course with wide tyres one does get a certain amount of slide at various points across the tread width. These marks cannot have been due to rubber deposit, must have been the leaching effect.
Does that suggest that SMA is more likely to show such an effect and thus show a marked reduction in grip? I don't know to be honest.
Unlike most road surfaces new SMA will show a significant mark from peak ABS braking, which is why it probably gets marked up more than most surfaces. Locked wheel braking produces fantastic marks!
At 40 mph ABS braking on new dry SMA will stop you in approx 18 to 20 metres whereas when skidding you will take about 28 to 30 metres to stop.
IaHa said:
Flat in Fifth said:
One thing I do notice in our county is that once SMA is laid it very very quickly becomes covered with what appear to be 'skid marks.'
My drive was laid with SMA and I got what appeared to be an 18" long curved 'skid mark' on the surface even though I knew there had been no such incident. What caused the mark was my car being reversed on with a fair degree of lock on, and of course with wide tyres one does get a certain amount of slide at various points across the tread width. These marks cannot have been due to rubber deposit, must have been the leaching effect.
My drive was laid with SMA and I got what appeared to be an 18" long curved 'skid mark' on the surface even though I knew there had been no such incident. What caused the mark was my car being reversed on with a fair degree of lock on, and of course with wide tyres one does get a certain amount of slide at various points across the tread width. These marks cannot have been due to rubber deposit, must have been the leaching effect.
Unlike most road surfaces new SMA will show a significant mark from peak ABS braking, which is why it probably gets marked up more than most surfaces. Locked wheel braking produces fantastic marks!
At 40 mph ABS braking on new dry SMA will stop you in approx 18 to 20 metres whereas when skidding you will take about 28 to 30 metres to stop.
So what were the marks on my drive then? No braking just low speed reversing. Was this due to the slight slip which occurs with wide tyres turning a tight radius curve? Can't have been due to anything else.
Hi, thanks everyone so far.
I've found out a bit more now - the car is total write off (new car too, he had been driving for just two weeks but in his defense he actually works with this model of car and had already logged well over a thousand miles in those few days, so he hadn't just jumped into it!).
They (driver and passengers) went back to have a look this morning at scene and apparently the tarmac is not yesterday's but still very recent with new white dotted lines ('only' on this new surface, and applied 'only' to this corner/bend.
He says he lifted off before the bend then applied throttle as he drove round. He was most of way round when it understeered (the police told him it must have oversteered) and it then let go at the back, went over on to its side sliding on road and ploughed through a couple's fence. All air bags went. Apart from bad bruising no one really hurt. The couple came out and assisted them once they realised no one had been drinking.
In discussion the couple told my friend the road is always covered in tyre marks and their fence has regularly been demolished by vehicles!
Looks like it's a black spot then and hence resurfacing? Is this any mitigation?
About as much as I know as friend is still shocked and nursing a black eye and swollen nose (and burn marks on arm from airbag).
Interesting point: although not badly hurt as I said, the one with least - well no injury bar shock, is the one rear passenger who it seems was not wearing his s/belt!
The car in question will be examined next week - I suppose my friend can just hope they find a defect on this new model.
Guessed what it is yet?
I've found out a bit more now - the car is total write off (new car too, he had been driving for just two weeks but in his defense he actually works with this model of car and had already logged well over a thousand miles in those few days, so he hadn't just jumped into it!).
They (driver and passengers) went back to have a look this morning at scene and apparently the tarmac is not yesterday's but still very recent with new white dotted lines ('only' on this new surface, and applied 'only' to this corner/bend.
He says he lifted off before the bend then applied throttle as he drove round. He was most of way round when it understeered (the police told him it must have oversteered) and it then let go at the back, went over on to its side sliding on road and ploughed through a couple's fence. All air bags went. Apart from bad bruising no one really hurt. The couple came out and assisted them once they realised no one had been drinking.
In discussion the couple told my friend the road is always covered in tyre marks and their fence has regularly been demolished by vehicles!
Looks like it's a black spot then and hence resurfacing? Is this any mitigation?
About as much as I know as friend is still shocked and nursing a black eye and swollen nose (and burn marks on arm from airbag).
Interesting point: although not badly hurt as I said, the one with least - well no injury bar shock, is the one rear passenger who it seems was not wearing his s/belt!
The car in question will be examined next week - I suppose my friend can just hope they find a defect on this new model.
Guessed what it is yet?
I cant see why there is soo much empasis here on the fact of speed, unless evidence is introduced to show that he was in excess of the speed limit, without excessive knowledge of the accuracy of the tests applied and the conditions but i would say that they may only be able to guess the speed to a variance of about 10 mph perhaps one bib on here will fill us in of the accuracy of the speed tests.
"Driving without due care and attention" is exactley that obviously the care and attention must vary directley to the conditions. If the conditions described in the O/P were objectiveley viewed the question is did the care and attention excersized fell below the standard expected of a competent driver.
Perhaps it is worth noting that emphasis must be placed for reason of gaining favour of the court that he was an experiened driver with this car. You do not want to put in any minds that he was a boy racer out with some mates.
The surfacing of the road, and the question of it must be assessed, it would be a complete answer if it was shown a novus actus intervenus (my spelling of latin is poor i know) this is an external factor, an intervening act which was the true cause of the result. Even without speed being a question, if in the climate and time he was driving to a reasonable standard and as a result of the tarmac caused him to loose control of the car then that should elide the cause of the accident.
The burden of proof should fall on the prosecution to prove that this was not the cause of the accident. Bearing consignance of the fact that this was the only section of road to have had that done and the lack of signing disclosing that this danger exists or may exist. It must have been unforseeable that this could occur.
What must be shown is that the standard of driving was acceptable, since nothing is mentioned of any other evidence before the accident then the only evidence will come from the accident report.
Remember that the case must be proved against your friend beyond a reasonable doubt, or that the decider must be sure that this happened. Im not going to get into a big legal discussion of why these are the same thing.
Tell ur friend good luck!!!
"Driving without due care and attention" is exactley that obviously the care and attention must vary directley to the conditions. If the conditions described in the O/P were objectiveley viewed the question is did the care and attention excersized fell below the standard expected of a competent driver.
Perhaps it is worth noting that emphasis must be placed for reason of gaining favour of the court that he was an experiened driver with this car. You do not want to put in any minds that he was a boy racer out with some mates.
The surfacing of the road, and the question of it must be assessed, it would be a complete answer if it was shown a novus actus intervenus (my spelling of latin is poor i know) this is an external factor, an intervening act which was the true cause of the result. Even without speed being a question, if in the climate and time he was driving to a reasonable standard and as a result of the tarmac caused him to loose control of the car then that should elide the cause of the accident.
The burden of proof should fall on the prosecution to prove that this was not the cause of the accident. Bearing consignance of the fact that this was the only section of road to have had that done and the lack of signing disclosing that this danger exists or may exist. It must have been unforseeable that this could occur.
What must be shown is that the standard of driving was acceptable, since nothing is mentioned of any other evidence before the accident then the only evidence will come from the accident report.
Remember that the case must be proved against your friend beyond a reasonable doubt, or that the decider must be sure that this happened. Im not going to get into a big legal discussion of why these are the same thing.
Tell ur friend good luck!!!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff