Morgan / Peugeot whoopsie
Discussion
SteveSteveson said:
At best they would end up taking out that bollard and at worst hitting the central reservation and either flipping or ending up in oncoming traffic, but there is no way a normal average driver (or even a PH driving god) is going to make that 1 second gap at that speed, especially during an emergency stop.
You say that, but I have never driven into the back of another car without attempting to go around it first. Even at the last 1/10th of a second there is no attempt to avoid. saaby93 said:
It's time they redesigned this type of junction onto a dual carriageway or similar A road junction.
Its not often you get a gap in both streams so you get people 'going for it'
Instead of planting a bollard in it, why cant they use the right hand lane there as an acceleration slip lane for people turning right like the Moggie, then allow some merge in turn a while later?
That's how it used to be, but overtaking equals speed and speed kills, so they took away the second lane and planted an obstruction in the middle of the road in the name of safety.Its not often you get a gap in both streams so you get people 'going for it'
Instead of planting a bollard in it, why cant they use the right hand lane there as an acceleration slip lane for people turning right like the Moggie, then allow some merge in turn a while later?
te 
carl_w said:
SteveSteveson said:
At best they would end up taking out that bollard and at worst hitting the central reservation and either flipping or ending up in oncoming traffic, but there is no way a normal average driver (or even a PH driving god) is going to make that 1 second gap at that speed, especially during an emergency stop.
You say that, but I have never driven into the back of another car without attempting to go around it first. Even at the last 1/10th of a second there is no attempt to avoid. carl_w said:
SteveSteveson said:
At best they would end up taking out that bollard and at worst hitting the central reservation and either flipping or ending up in oncoming traffic, but there is no way a normal average driver (or even a PH driving god) is going to make that 1 second gap at that speed, especially during an emergency stop.
You say that, but I have never driven into the back of another car without attempting to go around it first. Even at the last 1/10th of a second there is no attempt to avoid. Why are you not asking why the Morgan driver didn't swerve back onto the hatchings on the right after he passed the keep left sign?
andrewrob said:
carl_w said:
SteveSteveson said:
At best they would end up taking out that bollard and at worst hitting the central reservation and either flipping or ending up in oncoming traffic, but there is no way a normal average driver (or even a PH driving god) is going to make that 1 second gap at that speed, especially during an emergency stop.
You say that, but I have never driven into the back of another car without attempting to go around it first. Even at the last 1/10th of a second there is no attempt to avoid. Why are you not asking why the Morgan driver didn't swerve back onto the hatchings on the right after he passed the keep left sign?
No one has said the Morgan wasn't to blame, the discussion has just been whether it could have been avoidable.
My view is that an average driver (i.e. the 206 driver) would waste precious time reaching for the horn when they could have been threshold braking and looking ahead for options - something again your average driver's isn't used to. Instead, the 206 driver took a hand off the steering wheel to apply the horn, and lost time which resulted in target fixation. They also have ABS, right? And yet, the car is hardly standing on its nose. I would argue there was a big enough gap to steer to the right, over the hatching.
In fact, just watched it again (first looked yesterday) and it looks even more avoidable the second time round.
My view is that an average driver (i.e. the 206 driver) would waste precious time reaching for the horn when they could have been threshold braking and looking ahead for options - something again your average driver's isn't used to. Instead, the 206 driver took a hand off the steering wheel to apply the horn, and lost time which resulted in target fixation. They also have ABS, right? And yet, the car is hardly standing on its nose. I would argue there was a big enough gap to steer to the right, over the hatching.
In fact, just watched it again (first looked yesterday) and it looks even more avoidable the second time round.
hondansx said:
No one has said the Morgan wasn't to blame, the discussion has just been whether it could have been avoidable.
My view is that an average driver (i.e. the 206 driver) would waste precious time reaching for the horn when they could have been threshold braking and looking ahead for options - something again your average driver's isn't used to. Instead, the 206 driver took a hand off the steering wheel to apply the horn, and lost time which resulted in target fixation. They also have ABS, right? And yet, the car is hardly standing on its nose. I would argue there was a big enough gap to steer to the right, over the hatching.
In fact, just watched it again (first looked yesterday) and it looks even more avoidable the second time round.
Would the 206 have had ABS?My view is that an average driver (i.e. the 206 driver) would waste precious time reaching for the horn when they could have been threshold braking and looking ahead for options - something again your average driver's isn't used to. Instead, the 206 driver took a hand off the steering wheel to apply the horn, and lost time which resulted in target fixation. They also have ABS, right? And yet, the car is hardly standing on its nose. I would argue there was a big enough gap to steer to the right, over the hatching.
In fact, just watched it again (first looked yesterday) and it looks even more avoidable the second time round.
brianashley said:
TimmyMallett said:
That Peugeot didn't brake at all. Very strange.
Whatever it did , it did it badly. If the morgan had been a car with kids in the back.more would be blaming the driver for not driving with enough care . What is important is how the insurance companies /police will look at it . And what a cool yeti !
All we can expect the pug driver to do is brake in a straight line as best he can. All we can expect the morgan driver to do is make sure he has sufficient space and time to pull out into the flow of traffic. Which he failed to do. The onus is on the Morgan to get it right here.
The horn thing does get me though. I have had a few situations where things looked dicey; There is a cross roads near me where people have a tendancy to pull across the major road because a dip in the road makes it difficult to see if there is anyone coming. It can hide a car for 2-3 seconds.
And on the M5 once I undertook (naughty I know) a MLMer who'd been in L2 for ages doing less than NSL and he decided to move in L1 just as I undertook. No indication, just did it.
Both times the thought of stretching my thumb across to or taking my hand off the wheel to press the horn never materialized. Steering around, brakes covered, swearing under my breath. In that order.
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Tuesday 18th April 11:20
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Tuesday 18th April 11:28
Don't underestimate how long it takes the brain to process something catastrophically out of the ordinary unfolding in front of your eyes. By the time your body is actually ready for action it may already be too late. The horn pressing will have happened during the period that the perception of time slows down for the person experiencing the moment.
Pug probably used the horn as soon as it saw the Morgan, to warn them they are there, as I have done and was probably on the brakes hard, but presumed they wouldn't pull out and then they did...
As per others there is a bollard before the hatched area, hence you cant really swerve into that
They dived down the left and there wasn't enough space, Morgan got hit
Its pretty easy to use horn and brake hard, I've done it when I've seen car go to pull out in a similar situation, hopefully the horn alerted them I was there, hence they only part pulled out so I could swerve round them
Its bloody hard when presented with a situation like that, its easy to sit back and say "oh I would have done it like that" in your comfy armchair, but its very different when it happens for real .
As per others there is a bollard before the hatched area, hence you cant really swerve into that
They dived down the left and there wasn't enough space, Morgan got hit
Its pretty easy to use horn and brake hard, I've done it when I've seen car go to pull out in a similar situation, hopefully the horn alerted them I was there, hence they only part pulled out so I could swerve round them
Its bloody hard when presented with a situation like that, its easy to sit back and say "oh I would have done it like that" in your comfy armchair, but its very different when it happens for real .
TwistingMyMelon said:
Its pretty easy to use horn and brake hard, I've done it when I've seen car go to pull out in a similar situation, hopefully the horn alerted them I was there, hence they only part pulled out so I could swerve round them.
This. I'm confused by the mentality of some that seem to think horn and brakes are are an either/or option.This happened at a very nice monthly classic car event in the car park of White Lion Antiques, just outside Hartley Wintney. It's a dangerous road and hotspot for incident. The Mog is turning right towards HW. Cars coming from his right are often speeding up as it opens into a dual carriageway soon after the antique shop - so you have to have your wits about you.
The Pug is coming down a very fast dual carriageway hill (from Blackbushe), going into single file right at the scene of this accident. It's a dangerous, and complicated junction for those who don't use it often. Not saying the Mog wasn't at fault, but I am saying it was an accident in an accident hotspot that hopefully the local authority will now do something about it. Could have been far worse.
The Pug is coming down a very fast dual carriageway hill (from Blackbushe), going into single file right at the scene of this accident. It's a dangerous, and complicated junction for those who don't use it often. Not saying the Mog wasn't at fault, but I am saying it was an accident in an accident hotspot that hopefully the local authority will now do something about it. Could have been far worse.
It's been interesting reading the three discussions on this topic.
It's a phenomenon seen on Pistonheads many times before. It seems to me that a certain subsection of forum members (and no doubt humankind in general) lack sufficient mental faculties to entertain two thoughts simultaneously.
In this example:
Thought 1 - it was primarily the Morgan's fault. He was the one breaking a fundamental rule of the road.
Thought 2 - the Peugeot could possibly have reduced or even narrowly avoided the collision altogether if they'd reacted differently.
Unfortunately, even though a great many posts express both sentiments simultaneously, some PH members just cannot hold #1 in their head and whilst processing #2. So you end up with selective quoting and obtuse responses hammering on about a point the first poster was already demonstrably in agreement with in the preceding sentence.
I believe it's for this reason that everyone from politicians to biscuit companies have to go to such embarrassing lengths to express their thoughts in very clear, simple terms when dealing with any kind of sensitive or inflammatory subject - because the intellectually stunted cannot process complex lines of argument comprising of more than one idea.
It's a phenomenon seen on Pistonheads many times before. It seems to me that a certain subsection of forum members (and no doubt humankind in general) lack sufficient mental faculties to entertain two thoughts simultaneously.
In this example:
Thought 1 - it was primarily the Morgan's fault. He was the one breaking a fundamental rule of the road.
Thought 2 - the Peugeot could possibly have reduced or even narrowly avoided the collision altogether if they'd reacted differently.
Unfortunately, even though a great many posts express both sentiments simultaneously, some PH members just cannot hold #1 in their head and whilst processing #2. So you end up with selective quoting and obtuse responses hammering on about a point the first poster was already demonstrably in agreement with in the preceding sentence.
I believe it's for this reason that everyone from politicians to biscuit companies have to go to such embarrassing lengths to express their thoughts in very clear, simple terms when dealing with any kind of sensitive or inflammatory subject - because the intellectually stunted cannot process complex lines of argument comprising of more than one idea.
Bennet said:
It's been interesting reading the three discussions on this topic.
It's a phenomenon seen on Pistonheads many times before. It seems to me that a certain subsection of forum members (and no doubt humankind in general) lack sufficient mental faculties to entertain two thoughts simultaneously.
In this example:
Thought 1 - it was primarily the Morgan's fault. He was the one breaking a fundamental rule of the road.
Thought 2 - the Peugeot could possibly have reduced or even narrowly avoided the collision altogether if they'd reacted differently.
Unfortunately, even though a great many posts express both sentiments simultaneously, some PH members just cannot hold #1 in their head and whilst processing #2. So you end up with selective quoting and obtuse responses hammering on about a point the first poster was already demonstrably in agreement with in the preceding sentence.
I believe it's for this reason that everyone from politicians to biscuit companies have to go to such embarrassing lengths to express their thoughts in very clear, simple terms when dealing with any kind of sensitive or inflammatory subject - because the intellectually stunted cannot process complex lines of argument comprising of more than one idea.
I understand where you're coming from, but ultimately I'm not sure how helpful it would be to suggest that, with the benefit of hindsight, it is to point out that the Peugeot could have done things differently. If we are applying hindsight, don't buy a 206 at all! Yes, it's good to drive defensively, but the reality is that most people don't and won't when the brown stuff hits the spinny thing. That includes me, in all likelihood. A lot of the tone seems to focus on what the Peugeot could have done and normalises that kind of exceptional response and even expects it, hence the implicit criticism (and the response of others pushing back on that criticism).It's a phenomenon seen on Pistonheads many times before. It seems to me that a certain subsection of forum members (and no doubt humankind in general) lack sufficient mental faculties to entertain two thoughts simultaneously.
In this example:
Thought 1 - it was primarily the Morgan's fault. He was the one breaking a fundamental rule of the road.
Thought 2 - the Peugeot could possibly have reduced or even narrowly avoided the collision altogether if they'd reacted differently.
Unfortunately, even though a great many posts express both sentiments simultaneously, some PH members just cannot hold #1 in their head and whilst processing #2. So you end up with selective quoting and obtuse responses hammering on about a point the first poster was already demonstrably in agreement with in the preceding sentence.
I believe it's for this reason that everyone from politicians to biscuit companies have to go to such embarrassing lengths to express their thoughts in very clear, simple terms when dealing with any kind of sensitive or inflammatory subject - because the intellectually stunted cannot process complex lines of argument comprising of more than one idea.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff