Subaru vs bike head on collision.

[Dont like rolls]

xjay1337 said:

Oh no I get that, but I wouldn't call 66 speeding in the way that if he was doing 86.

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.

A little old lady would not have been in a stiffly sprung, quickly driven car on a Hoon. She would have been in a car with sufficient compliance in its suspension and driven at a speed that the corner would not have "made her" wash out into an innocent chap on a bike coming the other way..

[cherryowen]

MJK 24 said:

I see these chaps have gone into almost forensic levels of detail into this crash.

Really interesting if you’ve a spare ten minutes handy. Made me look at something that looks very straightforward and cut and dried completely differently.

https://youtu.be/QpGb5LFzKtE

Good video, and looking forward to Part 2.

There is certainly a part of "being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear, on your side of the road" not being adhered to. Having said that, the condition of the road surface, the signage and lack thereof, and the stone wall on the left preventing vision through the corner doesn't help someone unfamiliar with the road.

[Hungrymc]

xjay1337 said:

Oh no I get that, but I wouldn't call 66 speeding in the way that if he was doing 86.

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.

From a previous thread, I think “dangerous driving” has to be prolonged and intentional with major risk.

[GravelBen]

Dont like rolls said:

A little old lady would not have been in a stiffly sprung, quickly driven car on a Hoon. She would have been in a car with sufficient compliance in its suspension and driven at a speed that the corner would not have "made her" wash out into an innocent chap on a bike coming the other way..

You seem to be missing his point completely.

The driver made a mistake and apparently wasn't paying enough attention to the road, unfortunately for the biker it happened at a very bad moment. 10 seconds earlier or later their paths wouldn't have coincided and the driver would have just had a big fright, thought about his life choices and carried on at a slower pace. I'd say most of us have had a moment like that at some point in our lives.

If a little old lady had run wide on that corner through not paying enough attention (which is quite likely to have happened at other times) at the same moment with the same consequences, would they have received the same punishment or would it have just been shrugged off as a momentary lapse and 'she's already been punished enough with guilt' etc?

Trying to say a little old lady wouldn't have made a mistake is just dodging the question, I see little old ladies driving without paying attention quite often!

Edited by GravelBen on Wednesday 25th March 22:53

[RB Will]

Wonder if the road is as bad on the other side?
Could be that on the trip to the meet he got to the corner and navigated it absolutely fine at 60ish so thought it would be safe to do so on the return trip however the inside was a lot bumpier and looks like more of a drop off for the road going that way so maybe 60 was not possible

[NNH]

RB Will said:

Wonder if the road is as bad on the other side?
Could be that on the trip to the meet he got to the corner and navigated it absolutely fine at 60ish so thought it would be safe to do so on the return trip however the inside was a lot bumpier and looks like more of a drop off for the road going that way so maybe 60 was not possible

The video makes the corner's challenging nature look much more obvious from the opposite side.

[Dr Jekyll]

NNH said:

RB Will said:

Wonder if the road is as bad on the other side?
Could be that on the trip to the meet he got to the corner and navigated it absolutely fine at 60ish so thought it would be safe to do so on the return trip however the inside was a lot bumpier and looks like more of a drop off for the road going that way so maybe 60 was not possible

The video makes the corner's challenging nature look much more obvious from the opposite side.

I always regard 'I know the road' as the motorists equivalent of 'I'm sure this gun isn't loaded' but in this case recognising the bend could have helped. But if he'd only made one trip down that road and in the opposite direction it would be quite an achievement to recognise it anyway.

[Dont like rolls]

If you drive a car with such stiff suspension that it cannot cope with that road surface/change of level, then you are driving (have made) an unsafe car for such roads/public roads ?.............

[ExPat2B]

This is interesting.

What I would really like to see is video of regular normal traffic taking this corner. The video mentions that "several cars crossed the line while filming"

If this really is the case that a high percentage of cars cross the line, then this does seem excessive.

It really makes you think about how your public road persona results in you being perceived by the courts.

Driving a modified, stickered up car seems to lead to what can only be described as predudice

I really doubt Dave is his Mondeo would have received the same level of sanction as this guy, I think he would have been able to go with a guilty on careless and fight the dangerous driving charge at the very least.

Dangerous driving is defined as

"the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver; and (2) it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving that way would be dangerous. "

If that road causes normal motorists to regularly misjudge it in the same way, then I don't think dangerous driving would stick.

Myself I would be pulling any stickers or obvious external mods off my car.

[CoolHands]

Yet dave in his mondeo doesn't nearly criple someone.

I don't see why everyone is getting excited about some walt in a hi-viz doing a 3rd rate analysis to plug his own driver training.

[anonymous-user]

My understanding is that the subject of the OP crossed the white lines because he was unable to stay in lane. That's not the same as choosing to move out of it.

[carinaman]

Somebody on a motorcycle taking that bend from about 37 minutes in to give another view and perspective:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inMyhSDQX1w

[Dont like rolls]

The car ahead did not seem to have a problem........my bet is still a stupidly stiff front end on that car.

I drive similar roads every day, the worst cars to drive them in are the super stiff "road" cars, they are the ones that become unpredictable sooner or later and WILL catch you one day (and are fking uncomfortable) , what we see here is exactly that.

Some of the features (normally good) of the car became big liabilities, skittish handling/braking on "quickly undulating" ground and broken surfaces is the obvious conclusion for me, Plus: - the other aspects of speed etc.

Edited by Dont like rolls on Thursday 26th March 09:30

[GravelBen]

CoolHands said:

Yet dave in his mondeo doesn't nearly criple someone.

But sometimes he does, and doesn't necessarily receive the same punishment because he isn't perceived as 'hooning' and such. Thats the whole point you're missing.

[anonymous-user]

GravelBen said:

But sometimes he does, and doesn't necessarily receive the same punishment because he isn't perceived as 'hooning' and such. Thats the whole point you're missing.

I don't know about NZ, but dangerous driving in the UK is measured against the objective notional careful and competent driver. The test doesn't deviate due to the attributes of the driver, be they a granny or highly trained Police response driver.

The sentencing may vary due to the circumstances; a granny having a singular but serious lapse of concentration might be sentenced differently to someone committing a prolonged course of dangerous driving even though it ends in the same result. It will be down to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

It's a much preferable system to one where you're faced with an arbitrary fixed punishment whatever the circumstances.

[KAgantua]

CoolHands said:

Yet dave in his mondeo doesn't nearly criple someone.

I don't see why everyone is getting excited about some walt in a hi-viz doing a 3rd rate analysis to plug his own driver training.

Exactly. Dress it up how you want. Guy was driving too fast. Hint: If you regularly have corners 'surprise you' midway through them, you are going too fast.

[ExPat2B]

KAgantua said:

CoolHands said:

Yet dave in his mondeo doesn't nearly criple someone.

I don't see why everyone is getting excited about some walt in a hi-viz doing a 3rd rate analysis to plug his own driver training.

Exactly. Dress it up how you want. Guy was driving too fast. Hint: If you regularly have corners 'surprise you' midway through them, you are going too fast.

However the reverse also applies. If a corner regularly catches people out, the corner is dangerous, not the driver.

[anonymous-user]

ExPat2B said:

However the reverse also applies. If a corner regularly catches people out, the corner is dangerous, not the driver.

Totally agree.

You can usually spot such a corner in advance of arriving there by any or a combination of;

- 'SLOW' paint marking on the road
- Triangle hazard 'bend' sign on approach
- black and white chevron signs on the outside of the corner
- High friction road surface

I wonder how many of these are present around the bend here?

[Krikkit]

janesmith1950 said:

ExPat2B said:

However the reverse also applies. If a corner regularly catches people out, the corner is dangerous, not the driver.

Totally agree.

You can usually spot such a corner in advance of arriving there by any or a combination of;

- 'SLOW' paint marking on the road
- Triangle hazard 'bend' sign on approach
- black and white chevron signs on the outside of the corner
- High friction road surface

I wonder how many of these are present around the bend here?

None, it needs at least two of those imho

I did a course with the police last year, they reckoned that after a bad accident there's always a change made to the corner in terms of signage, and corners with everything have been especially bad.

[Paul_M3]

janesmith1950 said:

otally agree.

You can usually spot such a corner in advance of arriving there by any or a combination of;

- 'SLOW' paint marking on the road
- Triangle hazard 'bend' sign on approach
- black and white chevron signs on the outside of the corner
- High friction road surface

I wonder how many of these are present around the bend here?

None of them. Which was one of the points made in the video you haven’t watched.

Along with severely damaged and eroded sections of the corner which the council has subsequently repaired.

Was he going too fast for the corner? Obviously, otherwise it wouldn’t have happened. You can’t argue against that.

Was his driving dangerous? I’m not so sure. There were no obvious clues as to the severity of the corner, and certainly no clues as to the fact the road was damaged and that it crests at the apex. In fact the road leading up to it was fully resurfaced and smooth. They stopped the resurfacing literally just before the corner which seems crazy in itself.

I think the biggest argument against dangerous driving is the behaviour BEFORE the corner. It was a long straight road with excellent sight lines and no traffic in front of him. He was in a powerful Subaru. His chosen speed was less than 67mph, when it could easily have been much higher.

I’m obviously no legal expert, but based on the ‘evidence’ provided in the analysis video, wouldn’t Careless Driving have been more appropriate in this case?