Another young driver crash,sad story, Hamble, Hampshire

[Robertj21a]

yellowjack said:

skwdenyer said:

M4cruiser said:

I see now that the locals are calling for a speed limit reduction on that road in Hamble.

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/18118547.calls-re...

And, sadly, they will probably prevail. One of those “dangerous roads” it seems...

Always the fault of the road though. Just before Christmas I was cycling in the New Forest and rode past a warm Focus lying on it's side just off the road. It had rolled at least once, judging by the marks leading to it. On a dead straight road, and with the whole Forest (save for a couple of 'A' roads passing through it) subject to a blanket 40 mph speed limit (on account of loose livestock on the roads).

How does one even begin to roll a car on a dead straight road at 40 mph? Without it being preceded by a "watch this" moment, I can't imagine how it's even possible, unless you deliberately set out to roll it by steering violently into the scenery?

Trying to avoid that livestock ?

[yellowjack]

Robertj21a said:

yellowjack said:

skwdenyer said:

M4cruiser said:

I see now that the locals are calling for a speed limit reduction on that road in Hamble.

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/18118547.calls-re...

And, sadly, they will probably prevail. One of those “dangerous roads” it seems...

Always the fault of the road though. Just before Christmas I was cycling in the New Forest and rode past a warm Focus lying on it's side just off the road. It had rolled at least once, judging by the marks leading to it. On a dead straight road, and with the whole Forest (save for a couple of 'A' roads passing through it) subject to a blanket 40 mph speed limit (on account of loose livestock on the roads).

How does one even begin to roll a car on a dead straight road at 40 mph? Without it being preceded by a "watch this" moment, I can't imagine how it's even possible, unless you deliberately set out to roll it by steering violently into the scenery?

Trying to avoid that livestock ?

Hmmmm?

At 40 mph? On a dead straight road? In a "hot" hatch, with all the bells and electronic stability whistles? I'm simply not buying it...



...I mean, just how much visibility do you need? Flat. Straight. Good visibility to all sides for miles. Was it one of those Commando New Forest Ponies, leopard crawling to the edge of the carriageway before jumping out at the last moment?

Besides which there are signs upon signs upon signs warning drivers that ponies and other livestock are likely to be wandering around at all times of day and night, so livestock on the road is a perfectly normal road hazard in this part of the world. It's the main reason for that blanket 40 mph zone through the National Park that I mentioned earlier.

Usual poor driver guff, and only to be expected. Never admit it was your own fault for driving too fast for the conditions, unable to stop in the area you could see to be clear. Better to blame an inanimate object, or a farm animal whose presence you've been pre-warned about, eh?

[eldar]

yellowjack said:

Hmmmm?

At 40 mph? On a dead straight road? In a "hot" hatch, with all the bells and electronic stability whistles? I'm simply not buying it...



...I mean, just how much visibility do you need? Flat. Straight. Good visibility to all sides for miles. Was it one of those Commando New Forest Ponies, leopard crawling to the edge of the carriageway before jumping out at the last moment?

Besides which there are signs upon signs upon signs warning drivers that ponies and other livestock are likely to be wandering around at all times of day and night, so livestock on the road is a perfectly normal road hazard in this part of the world. It's the main reason for that blanket 40 mph zone through the National Park that I mentioned earlier.

Usual poor driver guff, and only to be expected. Never admit it was your own fault for driving too fast for the conditions, unable to stop in the area you could see to be clear. Better to blame an inanimate object, or a farm animal whose presence you've been pre-warned about, eh?

On YouTube, just look a a couple of bad Russian drivers. Any sort of
ludicrously insane driving is commonplace. Slightly rarer here, but phone, drink, drugs or inattention likely.

[aeropilot]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

julian64 said:

In an accident I want to be in the heaviest vehicle, and that video doesn't change my mind.

Of the same era, by and large, I agree. But those big Yank tanks of the 50s and early 60s were huge, heavy, and lethal. I'd rather be in a Citroen C1 than one of those if the 2 were in collision.

Yes, and they did a crash test of a '59 Chevy Impala vs. a '09 Chevy Impala back in 2009 to show how 50 years of crash testing has advanced....the '59 Chevy predictably folds like its made of cardboard...!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U

[Byker28i]

skwdenyer said:

M4cruiser said:

I see now that the locals are calling for a speed limit reduction on that road in Hamble.

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/18118547.calls-re...

And, sadly, they will probably prevail. One of those “dangerous roads” it seems...

Perhaps the suggestion should be to remove the trees?

[Nickgnome]

Byker28i said:

skwdenyer said:

M4cruiser said:

I see now that the locals are calling for a speed limit reduction on that road in Hamble.

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/18118547.calls-re...

And, sadly, they will probably prevail. One of those “dangerous roads” it seems...

Perhaps the suggestion should be to remove the trees?

Not really the solution and not practicable anyway.

I know School lane very well. It is a cul-de-sac leading to Hamble point Marina and a small public car park overlooking Southampton water. It is a very short piece of road. Visibility is poor and the road just about 2 lanes. The road is often wet at a couple of places due to verge run off. There are trees along both sides so quite dark even during the day. I think it is unlit once out of the 30 zone. I’ve never understood why it is de restricted. It would be very easy to make a mistake at night if travelling a bit fast and in a small car the added weight of passengers makes a significant difference to handling and stopping ability. Inexperience and panic often leads to drivers hitting the brakes when they should not.

It is very sad and I hope the council reduce the limit.

[Alucidnation]

yellowjack said:

Hmmmm?

At 40 mph? On a dead straight road? In a "hot" hatch, with all the bells and electronic stability whistles? I'm simply not buying it...



...I mean, just how much visibility do you need? Flat. Straight. Good visibility to all sides for miles. Was it one of those Commando New Forest Ponies, leopard crawling to the edge of the carriageway before jumping out at the last moment?

Besides which there are signs upon signs upon signs warning drivers that ponies and other livestock are likely to be wandering around at all times of day and night, so livestock on the road is a perfectly normal road hazard in this part of the world. It's the main reason for that blanket 40 mph zone through the National Park that I mentioned earlier.

Usual poor driver guff, and only to be expected. Never admit it was your own fault for driving too fast for the conditions, unable to stop in the area you could see to be clear. Better to blame an inanimate object, or a farm animal whose presence you've been pre-warned about, eh?

Never mind the fact that animals can and do, run out from the side of the road without warning.

[Cocknose]

aeropilot said:

Yes, and they did a crash test of a '59 Chevy Impala vs. a '09 Chevy Impala back in 2009 to show how 50 years of crash testing has advanced....the '59 Chevy predictably folds like its made of cardboard...!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U

That video is a real eye opener, thanks for posting it.

[Nickgnome]

Alucidnation said:

yellowjack said:

Hmmmm?

At 40 mph? On a dead straight road? In a "hot" hatch, with all the bells and electronic stability whistles? I'm simply not buying it...



...I mean, just how much visibility do you need? Flat. Straight. Good visibility to all sides for miles. Was it one of those Commando New Forest Ponies, leopard crawling to the edge of the carriageway before jumping out at the last moment?

Besides which there are signs upon signs upon signs warning drivers that ponies and other livestock are likely to be wandering around at all times of day and night, so livestock on the road is a perfectly normal road hazard in this part of the world. It's the main reason for that blanket 40 mph zone through the National Park that I mentioned earlier.

Usual poor driver guff, and only to be expected. Never admit it was your own fault for driving too fast for the conditions, unable to stop in the area you could see to be clear. Better to blame an inanimate object, or a farm animal whose presence you've been pre-warned about, eh?

Never mind the fact that animals can and do, run out from the side of the road without warning.

That looks like the New Forest and if it is ponies regularly wander across the road.

[yellowjack]

Nickgnome said:

Alucidnation said:

yellowjack said:

Hmmmm?

At 40 mph? On a dead straight road? In a "hot" hatch, with all the bells and electronic stability whistles? I'm simply not buying it...



...I mean, just how much visibility do you need? Flat. Straight. Good visibility to all sides for miles. Was it one of those Commando New Forest Ponies, leopard crawling to the edge of the carriageway before jumping out at the last moment?

Besides which there are signs upon signs upon signs warning drivers that ponies and other livestock are likely to be wandering around at all times of day and night, so livestock on the road is a perfectly normal road hazard in this part of the world. It's the main reason for that blanket 40 mph zone through the National Park that I mentioned earlier.

Usual poor driver guff, and only to be expected. Never admit it was your own fault for driving too fast for the conditions, unable to stop in the area you could see to be clear. Better to blame an inanimate object, or a farm animal whose presence you've been pre-warned about, eh?

Never mind the fact that animals can and do, run out from the side of the road without warning.

That looks like the New Forest and if it is ponies regularly wander across the road.

Well thanks for the benefit of your wisdom, chaps. But I'm using this specific example because it's the specific spot where a car rolled. Where exactly are the enormous walls, fences, trees or areas of low ground from which these "wandering", "running" ponies and cows are going to wander or run UNSEEN? And in a modern "hot hatch" how exactly are you proposing that a driver lost control while braking from just 40 mph to avoid livestock in such exceptional conditions of extended visibility? Again, like the Hamble incident, it suggests that drivers are too inept, too arrogant to drive to the conditions, instead either driving to speed limits (as a target) or driving in excess of posted limits when it is clear that the road isn't suitable for such speeds.

I drove through a village just the other day. I passed a side turn which led precisely nowhere (save for access to private property from it) yet if you turned down what was basically a potholed gravel road you left a 30 mph speed restricted zone and entered a NSL zone. Again, recently I set out to ride a particular byway on my bicycle. Upon leaving the 30 mph zone through the village, the posted limit sign for the byway was NSL. Yet a car that crawled along it was holding me up on my bike. It's a fact that not all NSL roads are suitable to be driven at anywhere near 60 mph. Yet some (particularly stupid) drivers seem to presume that because a limit is posted on a pole that it's a safe speed at which to drive. Which is exactly why we get what some of us consider to be stupidly low limits on good driving roads. Because those idiots who are poor drivers yet try to drive at or above the posted limit exceed their (or their car's) ability and end up crashing. And it is far easier to lower limits than it is to go back and retrain/reeducate dipstick drivers who consistently fail to assess conditions and amend their speed and general driving style appropriately.

So. Without any "whataboutisms", explain, for the benefit of the class, how you think a safe, serviceable motor car driven by a competent, qualified driver can be caused to leave the road and roll over at least once without some form of negligence, and exaggerated control input, on the part of said driver. Because I'm not seeing it. EVEN IF a full herd of New Forest Ponies stampeded toward/across the road, a car driven at 40 mph should, even in the hands of a barely competent novice, be capable of stopping (and with ABS/ESC steering too) within that piortion of the road that the driver can see is clear and can reasonably expect to remain clear. If a warning of loose livestock is extant (which it always is within the New Forest National Park) then wandering livestock is TO BE EXPECTED, and mitigating measures like keeping a better lookout than usual, and driving below the speed limit in situations where forward visibility is limited by darkness or features likely to conceal livestock, will need to be applied. TL;DR? It's the New Forest. Just slow the fk down unless you're a brain dead moron harbouring a burning desire to wear a dead pony through a broken windscreen.

[Nickgnome]

yellowjack said:

Well thanks for the benefit of your wisdom, chaps.

Snipped

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet.

Most of us understand that if all motorists drove with due care and attention, taking into consideration the conditions and driving within the limits then the accident rate, death and injury numbers would fall dramatically.

Unfortunately that is not the case with many younger people and some older ones as well.

Perhaps you were one of the few young drivers that drove correctly at all times.

Some of us didn’t and survived by a combination of luck and the inability for cars 50 odd years ago to go very fast.

I can recall spinning my Mother’s Hillman Imp, engine in the back and all that. Fortunately no damage done, except to my pride, and a good handling lesson learnt. My Triumph Herald had IRS so had to be careful cornering.

It’s impossible to put an old head on young shoulders.

[Perseverant]

Sad story. I remember so many others even from when I was a teenager. Also quite a few from when I was teaching - some caused by fatal combination of speed and inexperience. I usually tried to behave when I was young as I was impressed with the fact that my parents trusted me with the car to run my grandparents and sister around. I had a couple of frights the first winter I had a licence, which taught me to think a bit more too. A bit later I started motorcycling which again was a learning experience in terms of realising vulnerability and teaching observation of even tiny variations in road surfaces and watching out for damp or frost in shaded bits of road, not to mention the possibility of stray animals. I can't think of easy solutions, though I'd recommend that every driver should have motorcycle training too.
The clip of the Chevrolets was a shock! I always felt pretty safe in my P4 Rover, but looking at that.... I reckon that the chassis would be pretty strong, but once the colliding car rode up over the chassis rail and pushed the roadwheel back there wouldn't be much protection.

[DoubleD]

Nickgnome said:

It’s impossible to put an old head on young shoulders.

Is that a bit like saying that its impossible to teach an old dog new tricks?

[dandarez]

Nickgnome said:

yellowjack said:

Well thanks for the benefit of your wisdom, chaps.

Snipped

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet.

Most of us understand that if all motorists drove with due care and attention, taking into consideration the conditions and driving within the limits then the accident rate, death and injury numbers would fall dramatically.

Unfortunately that is not the case with many younger people and some older ones as well.

Perhaps you were one of the few young drivers that drove correctly at all times.

Some of us didn’t and survived by a combination of luck and the inability for cars 50 odd years ago to go very fast.

I can recall spinning my Mother’s Hillman Imp, engine in the back and all that. Fortunately no damage done, except to my pride, and a good handling lesson learnt. My Triumph Herald had IRS so had to be careful cornering.

It’s impossible to put an old head on young shoulders.

Hello Nicky, don't blame engine in the back of mum's Imp for 'spinning' - you were just incompetent!
Cars not fast 50 yrs ago? Your mum needed a 998 Hartwell lump in the back - not fast like today, but no slouch either!

Still, I drove Imps for a good few years when young, passed test in one. I had just the one spin, the only one to date in all my years of (road) driving (2nd Imp).
On my birthday too!
I spun that badly my flask of tea (apprentice years) smacked me on side of the face - that hurt!
Eventually, I slowed to a halt and was only just contravened the central line.
I knew things went in threes, but didn't expect this... hardly any traffic thankfully...
coming towards me was another ...Imp!

His reactions were ste (not saying mine were brilliant, but I had controlled the spin). He could have slowed, pulled up even, but no, kept coming then swerved but still caught and 'banged' my rear offside.
Nobody was hurt (apart from my face and ...pride).

fk all to do with the engine in the back, afterwards I ditched the recently bought raved-about new Michelin ZXs - and asap reverted to Pirelli's
…yeah, you guessed, it was very wet. It was 30 road outside town, I was doing that speed, but conditions meant I should have slowed a tad while approaching a rising left-hander in the pissing rain.

The (other) Imp driver was a tt.
Not at the scene. He was pleasant. We exchanged details although damage was little. My rear offside collided with his rear nearside. He didn't even switch off, jumped out, obviously didn't like getting wet, and said he needed to get home - 150 miles plus away!

That evening after birthday celebrations, I was in the garage, tub of filler, an aerosol, an hour or so, and I'd repaired dent (and pride was restored).

I'd almost forgot all about it when in the post I got a whacking great bill from 'tt' for repairs and damage to his Imp!
The list went on forever! new dynamo, new battery, new rear lights, new rear crossmember , damage to suspension, engine rebuild etc.
Luckily I'd notified my ins. company of the incident. I think they must have laughed at his ins. company asking him how did he manage to drive the car that far home! I never heard anything else.

See NIck, if you'd been wise you could have blamed Michelin ZXs like I have!

Back on topic, how about this for 'modun' yoof driving/crashing last Friday?
WTF do you need a licence for? Tax? Insurance? Nah, just nick a car. If some poor sod gets in the way when you crash it at speed, so wat? Cops 'll jus let ya off anywai. Who cares? Not scum today, eh?

I think this bloke (pedestrian in video) will be having a few nightmares for some time to come.
Me? I think the scumbag car thief should get 20 yrs. But he won't - in fact, he has since been released pending further inquiries.

Still, scum, he's only a 17-year-old local, arrested on suspicion of theft, aggravated vehicle taking, dangerous driving and driving without insurance.

Like that car insurance tv ad, 'you never know what's around the corner?'
Perhaps they should update it to 'you never know what might mount the pavement when you're on the way to the gym?'


https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2020-01-06/man-l...

Oh, and road pictured in thread above with 40, yeah, New Forest. I was on that recently, looks like the road to Beaulieu (motor museum). If you can't see the animals you can't be concentrating! Must be plenty like that going by the numbers that get hit.

Edited by dandarez on Tuesday 7th January 22:03

[Nickgnome]

dandarez said:

Hello Nicky, don't blame engine in the back of mum's Imp for 'spinning' - you were just incompetent!
Cars not fast 50 yrs ago? Your mum needed a 998 Hartwell lump in the back - not fast like today, but no slouch either!

I would have thought a publisher could read the implication in the bolded bit. Of course I was incompetent 17 years old and a few months after passing my test.

To say you have not spun since indicates you’re not trying hard enough. On the track only though.

I knew the guy that owned Dunsfold so had pretty much free reign in my supercharged Exige 1. 340Wbhp, 835kg. Now that was quick.

[Chrisgr31]

Nickgnome said:

Not really the solution and not practicable anyway.

I know School lane very well. It is a cul-de-sac leading to Hamble point Marina and a small public car park overlooking Southampton water. It is a very short piece of road. Visibility is poor and the road just about 2 lanes. The road is often wet at a couple of places due to verge run off. There are trees along both sides so quite dark even during the day. I think it is unlit once out of the 30 zone. I’ve never understood why it is de restricted. It would be very easy to make a mistake at night if travelling a bit fast and in a small car the added weight of passengers makes a significant difference to handling and stopping ability. Inexperience and panic often leads to drivers hitting the brakes when they should not.

It is very sad and I hope the council reduce the limit.

I fail to see what is going to be solved by reducing the limit. The limit will never be enforced, and of course just because the road is the national speed limit doesnt mean you have to drive at it. Drivers are meant to drive to the prevailing conditions not the speed limit.

[julian64]

aeropilot said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

julian64 said:

In an accident I want to be in the heaviest vehicle, and that video doesn't change my mind.

Of the same era, by and large, I agree. But those big Yank tanks of the 50s and early 60s were huge, heavy, and lethal. I'd rather be in a Citroen C1 than one of those if the 2 were in collision.

Yes, and they did a crash test of a '59 Chevy Impala vs. a '09 Chevy Impala back in 2009 to show how 50 years of crash testing has advanced....the '59 Chevy predictably folds like its made of cardboard...!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U

I really not sure what I'm seeing there. Both cars hit and both move the same amount. The crash protection in the younger car is much better.

However you can't defeat the laws of physics. If both cars move back the same amount its because they are both the same mass. One isn't a heavy yank tank compared to the newer car. You are seeing designed crash protection meeting no crash protection. Nothing in that suggests I would be happy hitting the yank tank in a C1 for instance.

Obviously the deformation in both cars is absorbing some of the impact, but that doesn't look like light car hitting old heavy car. What am I missing?

[DoubleD]

It would be interesting to see if a modern C1 would be better than an old heavy american car. I think it probably would, but a bigger modern car would be even better.

[Nickgnome]

Chrisgr31 said:

I fail to see what is going to be solved by reducing the limit. The limit will never be enforced, and of course just because the road is the national speed limit doesnt mean you have to drive at it. Drivers are meant to drive to the prevailing conditions not the speed limit.

The section of road concerned should never have been 60. It leads from a dense housing area into a Marina with a nice speed bump. Just prior is a public car park overlooking Solent water, quite a few elderly drivers park there, so either cars, vans and sometimes boat hauliers are using that small piece of road. 40MPH should be the maximum or possibly 30.

What drivers should be doing and what they actually do is not necessarily the same.

It’s never going to stop testosterone driven youngsters doing silly things. Maybe a temporary camera would help.

[Triumph Trollomite]

yellowjack said:

Well thanks for the benefit of your wisdom, chaps. But I'm using this specific example because it's the specific spot where a car rolled. Where exactly are the enormous walls, fences, trees or areas of low ground from which these "wandering", "running" ponies and cows are going to wander or run UNSEEN? And in a modern "hot hatch" how exactly are you proposing that a driver lost control while braking from just 40 mph to avoid livestock in such exceptional conditions of extended visibility? Again, like the Hamble incident, it suggests that drivers are too inept, too arrogant to drive to the conditions, instead either driving to speed limits (as a target) or driving in excess of posted limits when it is clear that the road isn't suitable for such speeds.

I drove through a village just the other day. I passed a side turn which led precisely nowhere (save for access to private property from it) yet if you turned down what was basically a potholed gravel road you left a 30 mph speed restricted zone and entered a NSL zone. Again, recently I set out to ride a particular byway on my bicycle. Upon leaving the 30 mph zone through the village, the posted limit sign for the byway was NSL. Yet a car that crawled along it was holding me up on my bike. It's a fact that not all NSL roads are suitable to be driven at anywhere near 60 mph. Yet some (particularly stupid) drivers seem to presume that because a limit is posted on a pole that it's a safe speed at which to drive. Which is exactly why we get what some of us consider to be stupidly low limits on good driving roads. Because those idiots who are poor drivers yet try to drive at or above the posted limit exceed their (or their car's) ability and end up crashing. And it is far easier to lower limits than it is to go back and retrain/reeducate dipstick drivers who consistently fail to assess conditions and amend their speed and general driving style appropriately.

So. Without any "whataboutisms", explain, for the benefit of the class, how you think a safe, serviceable motor car driven by a competent, qualified driver can be caused to leave the road and roll over at least once without some form of negligence, and exaggerated control input, on the part of said driver. Because I'm not seeing it. EVEN IF a full herd of New Forest Ponies stampeded toward/across the road, a car driven at 40 mph should, even in the hands of a barely competent novice, be capable of stopping (and with ABS/ESC steering too) within that piortion of the road that the driver can see is clear and can reasonably expect to remain clear. If a warning of loose livestock is extant (which it always is within the New Forest National Park) then wandering livestock is TO BE EXPECTED, and mitigating measures like keeping a better lookout than usual, and driving below the speed limit in situations where forward visibility is limited by darkness or features likely to conceal livestock, will need to be applied. TL;DR? It's the New Forest. Just slow the fk down unless you're a brain dead moron harbouring a burning desire to wear a dead pony through a broken windscreen.

Perhaps a vigilante cyclist threw an empty can of red bull at his windscreen after he git got impatient being held up by a middle of the road moron.

Perhaps he had a puncture or perhaps he was driving like a tt. Had it been a Nissan micro what response would you give?