Subaru vs bike head on collision.
Discussion
carinaman said:
Have you watched the video?
You've heard the saying 'It's only a mistake if you don't learn from it'?
As someone who's passed the IAM and RoSPA advanced tests and rides motorcycles I am looking forward to Part 2.
Absolutely nothing wrong in learning from it. Just so long as it's not used to try and suggest the offender is innocent. You've heard the saying 'It's only a mistake if you don't learn from it'?
As someone who's passed the IAM and RoSPA advanced tests and rides motorcycles I am looking forward to Part 2.
janesmith1950 said:
Absolutely nothing wrong in learning from it. Just so long as it's not used to try and suggest the offender is innocent.
You could have watched the video.
12 O'Clock 'Gather information and intelligence'.
What can we usefully learn from your comment if you've not watched the video?
janesmith1950 said:
Sorry, you're being too oblique. What are you suggesting the video tells us about the conviction in this case?
janesmith1950 said:
In other words, following an exhaustive examination of events by the Police and Courts, the guy was convicted. Unless he now alleges the conviction is unsafe, sleeping dogs are best left as they are.
I've watched the video. I didn't spot any sleeping dogs being disturbed just a fairly well behaved Cocker Spaniel.Perhaps the video wasn't about re-writing any verdict or history and was just an analysis being shared for the common good.
I think the YouTube Monicker of the person who's taken time to make the video may indicate that it's not about re-writing the verdict or what happened?
But then if you had watched the video before commenting I wouldn't have had to spoon feed you would I?
'Engage Brain before Opening Mouth' ring any bells?
I think it could be usefully re-purposed to apply to posting comments on the Internet.
janesmith1950 said:
In other words, following an exhaustive examination of events by the Police and Courts, the guy was convicted. Unless he now alleges the conviction is unsafe, sleeping dogs are best left as they are.
Who's 'he'?The driver who's in jail? Another poster?
It's always best to let sleeping dogs lie?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52022...
It's fascinating comparing the reaction to an accident on PH to the reaction to an air crash on general aviation forums.
On an aviation forum everybody wants to know as much as possible because they want to avoid the same mistake and mitigate the consequences if they do make it. Nobody says 'he hit the hill because he wasn't high enough it's as simple as that', or mistakes identifying contributory factors with looking for excuses. Certainly nobody says 'the court has decreed that he was/wasn't to blame and that's all we need to know'.
On an aviation forum everybody wants to know as much as possible because they want to avoid the same mistake and mitigate the consequences if they do make it. Nobody says 'he hit the hill because he wasn't high enough it's as simple as that', or mistakes identifying contributory factors with looking for excuses. Certainly nobody says 'the court has decreed that he was/wasn't to blame and that's all we need to know'.
Dr Jekyll said:
It's fascinating comparing the reaction to an accident on PH to the reaction to an air crash on general aviation forums.
On an aviation forum everybody wants to know as much as possible because they want to avoid the same mistake and mitigate the consequences if they do make it. Nobody says 'he hit the hill because he wasn't high enough it's as simple as that', or mistakes identifying contributory factors with looking for excuses. Certainly nobody says 'the court has decreed that he was/wasn't to blame and that's all we need to know'.
You're conflating a number of different things. In any accident you want to know how to avoid it happening again, irrespective of the arena. Being satisfied with be conviction doesn't preclude wanting to learn further to prevent it happening again. On an aviation forum everybody wants to know as much as possible because they want to avoid the same mistake and mitigate the consequences if they do make it. Nobody says 'he hit the hill because he wasn't high enough it's as simple as that', or mistakes identifying contributory factors with looking for excuses. Certainly nobody says 'the court has decreed that he was/wasn't to blame and that's all we need to know'.
In this case the Police will have undertaken a thorough forensic investigation at the scene as well as of the other evidence available (for example witnesses and dashcam evidence).
No harm whatsoever in an educational look at the event, just so long as the result of it isn't "I reckon it was 70% the driver's fault and 30% the road", as that's exactly the wrong kind of takeaway from the event.
Don't ask me how I have a detailed understanding of accidents involving bends and motorcycles and dangerous driving.
janesmith1950 said:
You're conflating a number of different things. In any accident you want to know how to avoid it happening again, irrespective of the arena. Being satisfied with be conviction doesn't preclude wanting to learn further to prevent it happening again.
In this case the Police will have undertaken a thorough forensic investigation at the scene as well as of the other evidence available (for example witnesses and dashcam evidence).
No harm whatsoever in an educational look at the event, just so long as the result of it isn't "I reckon it was 70% the driver's fault and 30% the road", as that's exactly the wrong kind of takeaway from the event.
Don't ask me how I have a detailed understanding of accidents involving bends and motorcycles and dangerous driving.
What are you talking about?In this case the Police will have undertaken a thorough forensic investigation at the scene as well as of the other evidence available (for example witnesses and dashcam evidence).
No harm whatsoever in an educational look at the event, just so long as the result of it isn't "I reckon it was 70% the driver's fault and 30% the road", as that's exactly the wrong kind of takeaway from the event.
Don't ask me how I have a detailed understanding of accidents involving bends and motorcycles and dangerous driving.
Percentages of that, percentages of the other?
What are you talking about if you're not talking about the video, the very reason this thread was updated?
If you're not referring to the video, you're referring to stuff that's in your head.
So your comments are not about the accident and the subsequent two part analysis video, but about you?
Do you have a blog or website so we can learn about you? I'd like to benefit from your experience and wisdom.
xjay1337 said:
having watched the interesting youtube video actually , it has made me wonder
If the subaru was actually a hyundai i20 and the driver was betty, 55 , grandmother , instead of darren, car enthusiast would they have been sent to prison.
By that logic 'Bettys' manage that corner everyday. Betty would have braked. Betty wouldn't have crashed and ploughed into a motorcyclist. If the subaru was actually a hyundai i20 and the driver was betty, 55 , grandmother , instead of darren, car enthusiast would they have been sent to prison.
Darren didn't brake he was speeding and he crashed.
janesmith1950 said:
untakenname said:
From the analysis of that video I would say it's 70% the fault of the driver and 30% down to the road.
Oh, and I can assure you Carinaman you already know plenty about me. Could someone watch the video from a learning perspective, especially as there's another part we've not seen yet, without any thoughts to apportioning blame?
The Alex Salmond verdict? 15 Jurors in a Scottish Court, but two didn't last until the end of the trial, but still needed a majority verdict from 8 jurors.
You mentioned Courts and forensic police examinations. Verdicts are reached by Jurors having an opinion.
Difference between the opinion of a Juror in a Court and someone posting on the Internet is?
Edited by carinaman on Wednesday 25th March 20:44
carinaman said:
It's an opinion posted on the Internet.
Could someone watch the video from a learning perspective, especially as there's another part we've not seen yet, without any thoughts to apportioning blame?
The Alex Salmond verdict? 13 Jurors in a Scottish Court, but two didn't last until the end of the trial, but still needed a majority verdict from 8 jurors.
You mentioned Courts and forensic police examinations. Verdicts are reached by Jurors having an opinion.
Difference between the opinion of a Juror in a Court and someone posting on the Internet is?
The jury didn't have an opinion in this case. The defendant pleaded guilty according to the article I read.Could someone watch the video from a learning perspective, especially as there's another part we've not seen yet, without any thoughts to apportioning blame?
The Alex Salmond verdict? 13 Jurors in a Scottish Court, but two didn't last until the end of the trial, but still needed a majority verdict from 8 jurors.
You mentioned Courts and forensic police examinations. Verdicts are reached by Jurors having an opinion.
Difference between the opinion of a Juror in a Court and someone posting on the Internet is?
I appreciate you go into a spiral of tinfoil conspiracy irrelevance every time something involving the Police gets mentioned. I'll leave you to it.
janesmith1950 said:
he jury didn't have an opinion in this case. The defendant pleaded guilty according to the article I read.
I appreciate you go into a spiral of tinfoil conspiracy irrelevance every time something involving the Police gets mentioned. I'll leave you to it.
Someone thinking the driver is 70% responsible and the road 30% isn't much difference from a 70/30 split in a jury is it?I appreciate you go into a spiral of tinfoil conspiracy irrelevance every time something involving the Police gets mentioned. I'll leave you to it.
You may want to watch the Part 2 video when it's on YouTube. You may learn something.
carinaman said:
Difference between the opinion of a Juror in a Court and someone posting on the Internet is?
A jurer is shown all the relevant evidence and this is tested by examination and cross examination, then they're given expert legal guidance of how to apply it to the relevant law.Someone on an internet forum takes a few lines from a BBC article and a video done outside of the investigation and declares it's 30% the road's fault.
Excellent You Tube video and analysis, still the drivers fault though, as soon as his limit point becomes that small he has to be on the brakes and hard on them in this case. The fact that he didn't brake at all approaching that corner was IMO the reason he got done for dangerous driving.
I was recently a passenger in a car that did a similar thing, luckily nothing was coming the other way, I had shouted 'brake, brake' when approaching the corner, the driver obviously hadn't applied anywhere near enough brake,as he crossed the centre line on exit. Earlier in the same journey I had also shouted brake as he went across a zebra crossing when a woman was just about to step foot on it, he claimed he didn't see her! Suffice to say it would take a lot to get me in a car with him driving again.
I was recently a passenger in a car that did a similar thing, luckily nothing was coming the other way, I had shouted 'brake, brake' when approaching the corner, the driver obviously hadn't applied anywhere near enough brake,as he crossed the centre line on exit. Earlier in the same journey I had also shouted brake as he went across a zebra crossing when a woman was just about to step foot on it, he claimed he didn't see her! Suffice to say it would take a lot to get me in a car with him driving again.
Aaa. said:
xjay1337 said:
having watched the interesting youtube video actually , it has made me wonder
If the subaru was actually a hyundai i20 and the driver was betty, 55 , grandmother , instead of darren, car enthusiast would they have been sent to prison.
By that logic 'Bettys' manage that corner everyday. Betty would have braked. Betty wouldn't have crashed and ploughed into a motorcyclist. If the subaru was actually a hyundai i20 and the driver was betty, 55 , grandmother , instead of darren, car enthusiast would they have been sent to prison.
Darren didn't brake he was speeding and he crashed.
And of course I'm sure many people make it around that corner without crashing.
But my question is that I'm sure there have been plenty of similar cases on other roads in other scenarios where people do equally STUPID things .
The demographic of the perpetrator does , I think , have an impact when it comes to the punishment
As I said had it been a little old lady who made a momentary mistake they would I very much doubt be in jail right now.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff