Subaru vs bike head on collision.

[anonymous-user]

Interestingly the guy took legal advice and pleaded guilty to an offence that has a high bar to conviction, an easy get-out for borderline cases to convict Careless instead and carries a potential 5 year custodial sentence.

Funny how watching a video makes you think he, his counsel, the Police and the Courts all got it wrong and the road (yes, the one without warning for the obviously 'dangerous' bend) should be locked up for life.

Hence my comments about the negative outcome from videos like this.

[J4CKO]

The video does give some mitigation and the road is toss, but he was going a bit quick, got it wrong and got punished.

How many other similar crashes at the same point on that road have occurred where other cars leave their side of the road and plough into whats coming the other way ?

[Salted_Peanut]

janesmith1950 said:

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

While I agree with all of these point, I think knowing how to use the Limit Point could be the most important skill for judging the right speed to take a corner.

[rev-erend]

An interesting point for you all to ponder: what would have been the outcome if there was no video evidence?

[Randy Winkman]

Salted_Peanut said:

janesmith1950 said:

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

While I agree with all of these point, I think knowing how to use the Limit Point could be the most important skill for judging the right speed to take a corner.

Surely there's no specific "right" speed though there's certainly a "wrong" speed. I like that article but I'm not sure of the text near the start that says "Others on the other hand may drive too cautiously and as a result of their slow speed may become a hazard themselves." Rather like your use of the term "right speed" it suggests that knowing about the Limit Point is to enable us to take a corner at the maximum safe speed. I'd say that's never a good speed to aim for on public roads.

[anonymous-user]

Salted_Peanut said:

While I agree with all of these point, I think knowing how to use the Limit Point could be the most important skill for judging the right speed to take a corner.

I agree using the limit point on unknown roads can be useful, but it's not a skill expected of a road driver and the a road driver doesn't need to understand or use the limit point to avoid losing control.

[WinstonWolf]

janesmith1950 said:

Salted_Peanut said:

While I agree with all of these point, I think knowing how to use the Limit Point could be the most important skill for judging the right speed to take a corner.

I agree using the limit point on unknown roads can be useful, but it's not a skill expected of a road driver and the a road driver doesn't need to understand or use the limit point to avoid losing control.

I'd disagree, I've used the limit point for about thirty five years and I've yet to meet a bend that caught me out. Met quite a few that did before I was taught about it...

[anonymous-user]

WinstonWolf said:

I'd disagree, I've used the limit point for about thirty five years and I've yet to meet a bend that caught me out. Met quite a few that did before I was taught about it...

What are you disagreeing with?

It is useful, although it's not part of the DSA test and it's not expected of the careful and competent driver.

I've been using it for years and it's very useful.

[WinstonWolf]

janesmith1950 said:

WinstonWolf said:

I'd disagree, I've used the limit point for about thirty five years and I've yet to meet a bend that caught me out. Met quite a few that did before I was taught about it...

What are you disagreeing with?

It is useful, although it's not part of the DSA test and it's not expected of the careful and competent driver.

I've been using it for years and it's very useful.

You're not competent if you don't understand what the limit point is and how it tells you what's happening ahead. It's a very basic and useful tool.

[Dr Jekyll]

janesmith1950 said:

agree using the limit point on unknown roads can be useful, but it's not a skill expected of a road driver and the a road driver doesn't need to understand or use the limit point to avoid losing control.

First of all it is a skill expected of a road driver, nothing to do with tracks. Secondly it isn't about avoiding losing control, it's about monitoring the distance that can be seen to be clear to ensure that speed is sufficient to stop within it.

One oddity about this accident was that it wasn't caused by going too fast to stop in the distance that could be seen to be clear (although the driver was probably doing so), it actually was a loss of control accident. But even so, strictly speaking the driver should have recognised the slight rise which blocked his view of the road ahead as a limit point and shed speed accordingly, so not be taken by surprise by the hazardous (not dangerous) nature of the bend.

[carinaman]

Dr Jekyll said:

janesmith1950 said:

agree using the limit point on unknown roads can be useful, but it's not a skill expected of a road driver and the a road driver doesn't need to understand or use the limit point to avoid losing control.

First of all it is a skill expected of a road driver, nothing to do with tracks. Secondly it isn't about avoiding losing control, it's about monitoring the distance that can be seen to be clear to ensure that speed is sufficient to stop within it.

In the video he mentions that he'll cover Roadcraft in the Part 2 video. The vanishing point is in Roadcraft.

[anonymous-user]

Dr Jekyll said:

First of all it is a skill expected of a road driver, nothing to do with tracks. Secondly it isn't about avoiding losing control, it's about monitoring the distance that can be seen to be clear to ensure that speed is sufficient to stop within it.

One oddity about this accident was that it wasn't caused by going too fast to stop in the distance that could be seen to be clear (although the driver was probably doing so), it actually was a loss of control accident. But even so, strictly speaking the driver should have recognised the slight rise which blocked his view of the road ahead as a limit point and shed speed accordingly, so not be taken by surprise by the hazardous (not dangerous) nature of the bend.

I thought you night bring up road Vs track, in which case limit point is irrelevant. In saying road driver I wasn't comparing a road driver to track driver.

The standard of road driving expected in this country is the DSA test. The law compares a road driver to the careful and competent driver; one that drives to the DSA standard and Highway Code.

Understanding or applying the limit point is not required to become or be a careful and competent driver. As far as the driving standards requirements and law it is irrelevant. You could be a master at it yet a court would not take it into account.

There are those of us who have taken our time and expense to undertake further training and understand advanced driving techniques. That's our choice, it may help us avoid accidents we otherwise would have had, however they're not expected by or rewarded by the authorities if something goes wrong.

There is nothing with the bend subject of this thread, that says a careful and competent driver, without using limit point, could not negotiate it without losing control. The lack of warning furniture suggests as much, the Police investigation suggests as much, the guilty plea suggests as much, the judges comments suggest as much and the unappealed prison sentence and ban suggest as much.

You could, of course, watch a video on YouTube and suggest the Police, CPS, Barristers, Courts and Offender have all got it wrong.

[RobM77]

A sobering incident to reflect on. It demonstrates how unusual driving is in our daily lives; a momentary lapse of judgement can permanently injure or kill someone and land you in jail. I can't think of anything else that most of us do that has this fleeting tipping point between normality and disaster. If I place a ladder incorrectly and fall off it, or someone else does, that placement is something I have as much time as I like to think about before I use the ladder. Similarly, if I'm using power tools incorrectly, I've got as much time as I like to think about how dangerous what I'm doing is; it's a clear mistake with time to reflect. With driving, all it takes is a split second lapse, and together with other coincidences, such as the biker being at that exact point in the road, our lapse of judgement occurring on a dangerous corner, etc, and we have an accident like this one. Scary.

[xjay1337]

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..

But the speed limit is a national speed limit road.

Did you watch the video? Even in an Audi R8 at 30mph it still caused the car to go over to the other side of the road.

I'm not defending the Subaru driver.

But from the video I really don't think it was dangerous.

As I said if he was going 86 instead of 66... but I don't think 66mph can be classed as a DANGEROUS speed nor .

I've already said it was his fault, but looks more like an honest mistake and a combination of errors. Someone mentioned comparing it to the actions of a plane crash investigator - all of these things regarding the road etc , lack of signage etc would have been mentioned.

As I said there was probably strong bias because he was a young-ish car enthusiast, we are always at higher risk of a harsher prosecution.

[Dr Jekyll]

janesmith1950 said:

Dr Jekyll said:

First of all it is a skill expected of a road driver, nothing to do with tracks. Secondly it isn't about avoiding losing control, it's about monitoring the distance that can be seen to be clear to ensure that speed is sufficient to stop within it.

One oddity about this accident was that it wasn't caused by going too fast to stop in the distance that could be seen to be clear (although the driver was probably doing so), it actually was a loss of control accident. But even so, strictly speaking the driver should have recognised the slight rise which blocked his view of the road ahead as a limit point and shed speed accordingly, so not be taken by surprise by the hazardous (not dangerous) nature of the bend.

I thought you night bring up road Vs track, in which case limit point is irrelevant. In saying road driver I wasn't comparing a road driver to track driver.

The standard of road driving expected in this country is the DSA test. The law compares a road driver to the careful and competent driver; one that drives to the DSA standard and Highway Code.

Understanding or applying the limit point is not required to become or be a careful and competent driver. As far as the driving standards requirements and law it is irrelevant. You could be a master at it yet a court would not take it into account.

Motorway driving isn't included in the DSA test, but it's still part of being a competent driver.

janesmith1950 said:

There are those of us who have taken our time and expense to undertake further training and understand advanced driving techniques. That's our choice, it may help us avoid accidents we otherwise would have had, however they're not expected by or rewarded by the authorities if something goes wrong.

That the nations are benighted grieves me; but the fact that others dwell in the darkness should not deter we who are fortunate to dwell in the light.

janesmith1950 said:

There is nothing with the bend subject of this thread, that says a careful and competent driver, without using limit point, could not negotiate it without losing control. The lack of warning furniture suggests as much, the Police investigation suggests as much, the guilty plea suggests as much, the judges comments suggest as much and the unappealed prison sentence and ban suggest as much.

You could, of course, watch a video on YouTube and suggest the Police, CPS, Barristers, Courts and Offender have all got it wrong.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I am saying the legal system has got it wrong. This is a motoring forum not a legal one, and in any case the legal decision does not represent a statement that no other factor may have been involved. What I'm trying to do is identify the factors involved so as to make my own driving safer, and the decision of the court does not mean other factors cannot have been involved.
If the driver had not been convicted or even charged I would still be trying to work out why he made the mistakes he did.

It's clear from the video that the large rut at the side of the road has since been filled, so presumably someone else thinks the road condition may have been a factor.

[echazfraz]

Matey's car wan't teleported to the start of the video. He must have been driving on that road prior to the crash. He therefore, in my opinion, should have been more clued-in to the type of road that he was driving on and to "expect the unexpected" - sheep, tourists, bumps, etc.

Who's yer man on the youtube analysis? Likes his radios. Looks a bit Walt-ish at first glance, but then has some nice cars and seemingly some knowledge of what he's talking about. Although the "out of nowhere a corner appears" comment is a bit odd and reference to no visual clues of a corner - he literally describes all of the clues that something's changing too!

Is he a forensic collision investigator by trade?

[Dont like rolls]

xjay1337 said:

But the speed limit is a national speed limit road.

Did you watch the video? Even in an Audi R8 at 30mph it still caused the car to go over to the other side of the road.

I'm not defending the Subaru driver.

But from the video I really don't think it was dangerous.

As I said if he was going 86 instead of 66... but I don't think 66mph can be classed as a DANGEROUS speed nor .

I've already said it was his fault, but looks more like an honest mistake and a combination of errors. Someone mentioned comparing it to the actions of a plane crash investigator - all of these things regarding the road etc , lack of signage etc would have been mentioned.

As I said there was probably strong bias because he was a young-ish car enthusiast, we are always at higher risk of a harsher prosecution.

Speed is not the only factor here, re compliant suspension.

You raising the Audi R8 confirms you do not understand.....that is my point. Cars like this and the A8 do this, it is why a French farmer in a 206 TD can be impossible to catch.

Nor am I defending him....I am making no comment on danger.

[anonymous-user]

Dr Jekyll said:

Motorway driving isn't included in the DSA test.

It is, just not in the practical part. It's also in the Highway Code. Is the limit point in the test or Highway Code? We know the answer to that.

The guy's driving fell far below that expected of the careful and competent driver. It wasn't the road's fault.

[Fastdruid]

janesmith1950 said:

Interestingly the guy took legal advice and pleaded guilty to an offence that has a high bar to conviction, an easy get-out for borderline cases to convict Careless instead and carries a potential 5 year custodial sentence.

Funny how watching a video makes you think he, his counsel, the Police and the Courts all got it wrong and the road (yes, the one without warning for the obviously 'dangerous' bend) should be locked up for life.

Hence my comments about the negative outcome from videos like this.

I've said this before but it's a common mistake to believe that because you're clearly guilty of doing "something" that you're guilty of the ***charge***.

That the end result of his driving left the rider with life changing injuries are beyond question.

That it was "dangerous driving" is in question, obviously we've not seen the rest of the footage but given the state of the corner and what was *not* excessive speed on the previous straight (although speeding 67mph is hardly massive speed) it strikes me more as DWDCA, a particularly unfortunate case of it obviously but that's down to (bad) luck.

[TheDukeofBork]

No-one pleads guilty to DD if they think a jury might reduce to DWDCA.