Monkey crashes Porsche

[Alucidnation]

TheJimi said:

Alucidnation said:

I always like to be first.



For what it’s worth, I really CH and his style.

Stop confusing me!

[98elise]

MollyGT3 said:

Chris H knows that area particularly well so unlikely to be him in the wrong. Then again, they say you should be particularly careful closest to home

You should be able to stop in the distance you can see. If not you're going to hit something or someone at some point.

[TheJimi]

98elise said:

MollyGT3 said:

Chris H knows that area particularly well so unlikely to be him in the wrong. Then again, they say you should be particularly careful closest to home

You should be able to stop in the distance you can see. If not you're going to hit something or someone at some point.

You can say that until the cows come home, but the truth is that there's going to situations such as (potentially) this one and others described that means you're going to struggle not to come unstuck.

The concept, while theoretically sound, is also very black and white - and real life on the road is anything but, imo.

[p1stonhead]

98elise said:

MollyGT3 said:

Chris H knows that area particularly well so unlikely to be him in the wrong. Then again, they say you should be particularly careful closest to home

You should be able to stop in the distance you can see. If not you're going to hit something or someone at some point.

This was my first thought.

Police apparently disagree though;
https://www.instagram.com/p/BqHL6pBHLhk/

[loskie]

You should be able to stop in the distance you can see. If not you're going to hit something or someone at some point.

[/quote]


I have always heard that but never understood how it works if driving around a blind bend.
Do I have to stop and send a runner out to look before progressing?

[p1stonhead]

loskie said:

I have always heard that but never understood how it works if driving around a blind bend.
Do I have to stop and send a runner out to look before progressing?

No you need to be going slow enough around the blind bend to stop before hitting something that may be in the road on the other side of said bend. Its not difficult.

Edited by p1stonhead on Tuesday 13th November 08:42

[springfan62]

loskie said:

You should be able to stop in the distance you can see. If not you're going to hit something or someone at some point.

I have always heard that but never understood how it works if driving around a blind bend.
Do I have to stop and send a runner out to look before progressing?

Thus if you go round a bend faster than you can see to be clear and there is a queue round the corner, whose fault would it be when you rear end the car in front. Pretty obvious you would have no one else to blame but yourself. It's a basic rule of the highway code.

[julian64]

p1stonhead said:

98elise said:

MollyGT3 said:

Chris H knows that area particularly well so unlikely to be him in the wrong. Then again, they say you should be particularly careful closest to home

You should be able to stop in the distance you can see. If not you're going to hit something or someone at some point.

This was my first thought.

Police apparently disagree though;
https://www.instagram.com/p/BqHL6pBHLhk/

You are not allowed to assume there is nothing round a bend, and there is no bend in the entire world where you would have to stop and send a runner out.

To say the accident was unavoidable is just bonkers and shows a complete lack of road awareness.

Round my way its not uncommon to find a horse and horse rider round a bend. You can't just crash into horses and say. Unavoidable because the horse was In the middle of the road.

If the police weren't interested in him then they thought his driving was of a reasonable standard, but to be honest if the other car was a film car and he was doing some sort of video then he needs to reassess where his concentration was, cos that's no better than being on a mobile from the point of view of distraction.

If I car doing a U turn round a bend is unavoidable I suggest he never drives in London, else he is likely to rear end the second or third Taxi he meets.

I assume the police cleared him from most of that so good luck to him, but stop saying unavoidable.

[anonymous-user]

p1stonhead said:

No you need to be going slow enough around the blind bend to stop before hitting something that may be in the road on the other side of said bend. Its not difficult.

Although worth pointing out this is not an absolute. If something is in the road and a careful and competent driver could be excused for colliding with it, then no offence (or negligence, depending on the circumstances).

Also, contravention of the guidance sections of the HC may be evidence of an offence or negligence, however it is not an offence or negligence in itself.

[Ransoman]

I really don't like Chris Harris. However he is not in the wrong at all here.

How monumentally stupid do you have to be to do a 3 point turn right at a bend so tight that it even has chevrons. You would have to be going almost walking pace to avoid it.

[p1stonhead]

janesmith1950 said:

p1stonhead said:

No you need to be going slow enough around the blind bend to stop before hitting something that may be in the road on the other side of said bend. Its not difficult.

Although worth pointing out this is not an absolute. If something is in the road and a careful and competent driver could be excused for colliding with it, then no offence (or negligence, depending on the circumstances).

How is it not an absolute?

If you hit something in the road stopped in your lane, how are you not going too fast for the conditions?

[CABC]

p1stonhead said:

This was my first thought.

Police apparently disagree though;
https://www.instagram.com/p/BqHL6pBHLhk/

of course speed was a factor, he couldn't stop.
many of us do it, but the fact is if you can't stop in the distance you can see you're exposing yourself to danger.
the Instagram post states that police aren't taking action against him but I strongly suspect that the officer did not actually say speed wasn't a factor. more likely that Monkey wasn't driving so recklessly that they'll take action.

Further, despite being your responsibility to be able to stop, others shouldn't perform 3-point turns on a bend.

[cowboyengineer]

p1stonhead said:

How is it not an absolute?

If you hit something in the road stopped in your lane, how are you not going too fast for the conditions?

But it wasn't stopped in the lane. It moved in to his lane.

[swisstoni]

His insurance is going to go up.

[fakenews]

I understand a pick-up turned across him on a damp corner whilst he was doing nothing wrong.

Clear one second, 'oh st' the next...

If someone wants to suddenly enter your lane from the other direction there isn't much you can do about it - however good a driver you think you are.

[DanielSan]

It's always amazing how the internet experts who are nowhere near the scene and have no information other than a picture of a damaged car think they know every detail of the incident.

And go as far as to say he was following a film car, in his own 911 on the way home from shooting something else at Anglesey....

[vonhosen]

Most collisions that involve more than one driver will tend to have a degree of culpability on both parties.
It only takes one to be doing exactly what they really should be doing for it to be avoided. If both do what they really shouldn't be doing then there could be a degree of culpability on both.
1) Drivers generally shouldn't be performing three point turns in positions with poor sight lines or areas of potential conflict.
2) Drivers should drive so as to be able to stop before reaching a stationary vehicle in the road ahead of them.

There are a lot of variables that could move the degree of culpability/liability line away from one towards the other.
Each case should be judged on it's own full facts & we don't have anything like the full facts here.

[Veeayt]

PH gossip matters. What a bunch of old hags

[Davey S2]

Gutted for him as I know he had tried a few times to get a GT3 allocation but never made the grade. Finally gets one and then this.

Could be worse though. He's not exactly short of opportunity to drive a lot of nice cars.

Lots of people in California have lost a lot more in recent days.

[DuncanM]

julian64 said:

You are not allowed to assume there is nothing round a bend, and there is no bend in the entire world where you would have to stop and send a runner out.

To say the accident was unavoidable is just bonkers and shows a complete lack of road awareness.

Round my way its not uncommon to find a horse and horse rider round a bend. You can't just crash into horses and say. Unavoidable because the horse was In the middle of the road.

If the police weren't interested in him then they thought his driving was of a reasonable standard, but to be honest if the other car was a film car and he was doing some sort of video then he needs to reassess where his concentration was, cos that's no better than being on a mobile from the point of view of distraction.

If I car doing a U turn round a bend is unavoidable I suggest he never drives in London, else he is likely to rear end the second or third Taxi he meets.

I assume the police cleared him from most of that so good luck to him, but stop saying unavoidable.

Spot on.