Subaru vs bike head on collision.

Subaru vs bike head on collision.

Author
Discussion

gazza285

6,069 posts

162 months

Thursday 26th March
quotequote all
Sa Calobra said:
Didn't something similar happen to 10penceshort?

Overcooked the bend into an incoming motorcyclist.
I recall he smashed the car to bits, but was stationary in the remains on the wrong side of the road when the motorcyclist happened upon him.
  • edit*
Having read 10PS's tale again, he was sliding sideways down the middle of the road when the collision occured.

Edited by gazza285 on Thursday 26th March 19:52

vonhosen

36,595 posts

171 months

Thursday 26th March
quotequote all
gazza285 said:
Sa Calobra said:
Didn't something similar happen to 10penceshort?

Overcooked the bend into an incoming motorcyclist.
I recall he smashed the car to bits, but was stationary in the remains on the wrong side of the road when the motorcyclist happened upon him. .
Don't think he was stationary or that it was bashed up prior to impact. He lost control was straddling the road & the impact forced the bike back 14m from where it had come.

Sa Calobra

29,522 posts

165 months

Thursday 26th March
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
Don't think he was stationary or that it was bashed up prior to impact. He lost control was straddling the road & the impact forced the bike back 14m from where it had come.
This. He said as such in his diary before he deleted it from ph

GravelBen

14,116 posts

184 months

Thursday 26th March
quotequote all
janesmith1950 said:
Unless you do the obvious, ask the driver, you may as well suppose it was aliens or demonic possession.

The Police will have undertaken an exhaustive physical and scientific examination of the scene at the time and neither this nor the driver seem to have offered a reasonable explanation other than gross driver error.
Do you have anything constructive to add to the discussion or are you just here to repeatedly tell people they shouldn't dare to ask questions or think about what happened?

MDMA .

5,445 posts

55 months

Thursday 26th March
quotequote all
Dont like rolls said:
MDMA . said:
The driver of the Legacy behind managed the same corner without issue. Both travelling around the same speed. I don't agree with latest Youtube/Walt video.
There are clear reasons it made it and the other one did not....
Yes. The one in the Legacy could drive, the one in the Impreza couldn't.

heebeegeetee

26,909 posts

202 months

Thursday 26th March
quotequote all
Dr Jekyll said:
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.
There are plenty of statements I feel I could respond to, but let me pick yours if you don't mind. smile
Not far from the accident the road looks like this. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.4680918,-1.63659...
and this
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.4128341,-1.66654...

It's a remote country road, that's what remote country roads look like. Us enthusiasts like to drive on remote country roads, we go there specifically to go and engage with the conditions, but I'm struggling to see why you'd then blame those conditions that you already know about should you crash. Country roads do not have every bend and hazard sign posted, the cost of doing so would be impossible. And we know that they're almost all at national speed limit, but so what?

I just think the bloke wasn't watching where he was going, pure and simple.

If I don't watch where I am going I can walk into a lamp post. Do I hit the lamp post because I am walking too fast? No. Should there be a sign warning me of the lamppost? No, and indeed if i'm not watching where I'm going I can walk into the sign itself anyway.

I imagine 99.9%+ of the traffic on that road have no problem with that corner. There is no pile of wrecked cars there, no debris or so on. The car travelling behind at much the same speed, who had no brake lights of the car ahead to warn him, found himself having to brake hard and swerve left all at the same time, mid-corner, without any obvious difficulty.

Right from the very start of the video you can see that the road ahead goes out of sight, but the driver doesn't react until far too late. He wasn't watching where he was going and that's all there is to it, for me.

Fwiw, I used to participate in road rallying in that part of the world, many years ago. The leading crews were all in 400bhp Imprezas, all driving flat out, on those very roads, at night, all night. It was bloody brilliant. Were people crashing all night long? No they weren't, and fwiw the extra insurance we needed to participate in timed events was dirt cheap also. smile


kiseca

7,974 posts

173 months

Friday 27th March
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
Dr Jekyll said:
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.
There are plenty of statements I feel I could respond to, but let me pick yours if you don't mind. smile
Not far from the accident the road looks like this. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.4680918,-1.63659...
and this
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.4128341,-1.66654...

It's a remote country road, that's what remote country roads look like. Us enthusiasts like to drive on remote country roads, we go there specifically to go and engage with the conditions, but I'm struggling to see why you'd then blame those conditions that you already know about should you crash. Country roads do not have every bend and hazard sign posted, the cost of doing so would be impossible. And we know that they're almost all at national speed limit, but so what?

I just think the bloke wasn't watching where he was going, pure and simple.

If I don't watch where I am going I can walk into a lamp post. Do I hit the lamp post because I am walking too fast? No. Should there be a sign warning me of the lamppost? No, and indeed if i'm not watching where I'm going I can walk into the sign itself anyway.

I imagine 99.9%+ of the traffic on that road have no problem with that corner. There is no pile of wrecked cars there, no debris or so on. The car travelling behind at much the same speed, who had no brake lights of the car ahead to warn him, found himself having to brake hard and swerve left all at the same time, mid-corner, without any obvious difficulty.

Right from the very start of the video you can see that the road ahead goes out of sight, but the driver doesn't react until far too late. He wasn't watching where he was going and that's all there is to it, for me.

Fwiw, I used to participate in road rallying in that part of the world, many years ago. The leading crews were all in 400bhp Imprezas, all driving flat out, on those very roads, at night, all night. It was bloody brilliant. Were people crashing all night long? No they weren't, and fwiw the extra insurance we needed to participate in timed events was dirt cheap also. smile
This guy wouldn't have crashed either if he and the rider hadn't been in the same place at the same time. It takes misjudgment, unforgiving surroundings and bad timing all working together to make this happen.

WinstonWolf

72,133 posts

193 months

Friday 27th March
quotequote all
janesmith1950 said:
It's pretty simple. A careful and competent driver wouldn't be spat across the road in clear, dry conditions by small changes in road surface, camber or elevation. They wouldn't be travelling fast enough for it to matter. They also wouldn't miss that the road ahead had disappeared out of view and would have slowed to an appropriate speed.

The guy here inexplicably crossed into the opposing lane when he shouldn't and had no need to.

You don't need a physics degree or Youtuber in hi-viz to understand.

It was 100% the driver's fault.
The collision investigator doesn't agree with you.

janesmith1950

6,399 posts

49 months

Friday 27th March
quotequote all
WinstonWolf said:
The collision investigator doesn't agree with you.
Which one over which bit?

janesmith1950

6,399 posts

49 months

Friday 27th March
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
Don't think he was stationary or that it was bashed up prior to impact. He lost control was straddling the road & the impact forced the bike back 14m from where it had come.
There are small differences in the layout of the roads and the paths followed by the cars but on the whole the reasons for being on the wrong side of the road (excess speed) and the outcomes are broadly similar.

Had the offence of 'serious injury by' dangerous driving been in force back then I'd expect the 12 month prison sentence would have been greater.

WinstonWolf

72,133 posts

193 months

Friday 27th March
quotequote all
janesmith1950 said:
WinstonWolf said:
The collision investigator doesn't agree with you.
Which one over which bit?
The professional investigator in the video, where does he say it's 100% driver error?

Zarco

13,101 posts

163 months

Friday 27th March
quotequote all
Very interesting video, thanks for posting.

janesmith1950

6,399 posts

49 months

Friday 27th March
quotequote all
WinstonWolf said:
The professional investigator in the video, where does he say it's 100% driver error?
Oh sorry, I thought you meant the professionals involved in the case rather than the vlogger who wasn't.

His video has 'helpfully' led some people to believe the courts were wrong and the road was significantly at fault for the accident.

WinstonWolf

72,133 posts

193 months

Friday 27th March
quotequote all
janesmith1950 said:
WinstonWolf said:
The professional investigator in the video, where does he say it's 100% driver error?
Oh sorry, I thought you meant the professionals involved in the case rather than the vlogger who wasn't.

His video has 'helpfully' led some people to believe the courts were wrong and the road was significantly at fault for the accident.
Where does he say 100% driver error? I'd trust his assessment over yours.

janesmith1950

6,399 posts

49 months

Friday 27th March
quotequote all
WinstonWolf said:
Where does he say 100% driver error? I'd trust his assessment over yours.
I'll trust the police, lawyers and courts over both, cheers.

WinstonWolf

72,133 posts

193 months

Friday 27th March
quotequote all
janesmith1950 said:
WinstonWolf said:
Where does he say 100% driver error? I'd trust his assessment over yours.
I'll trust the police, lawyers and courts over both, cheers.
Good job you're not involved in aviation safety then wink

8Speed

312 posts

20 months

Friday 27th March
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
There are plenty of statements I feel I could respond to, but let me pick yours if you don't mind. smile
Not far from the accident the road looks like this. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.4680918,-1.63659...
and this
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.4128341,-1.66654...

It's a remote country road, that's what remote country roads look like. Us enthusiasts like to drive on remote country roads, we go there specifically to go and engage with the conditions, but I'm struggling to see why you'd then blame those conditions that you already know about should you crash. Country roads do not have every bend and hazard sign posted, the cost of doing so would be impossible. And we know that they're almost all at national speed limit, but so what?

I just think the bloke wasn't watching where he was going, pure and simple.

If I don't watch where I am going I can walk into a lamp post. Do I hit the lamp post because I am walking too fast? No. Should there be a sign warning me of the lamppost? No, and indeed if i'm not watching where I'm going I can walk into the sign itself anyway.

I imagine 99.9%+ of the traffic on that road have no problem with that corner. There is no pile of wrecked cars there, no debris or so on. The car travelling behind at much the same speed, who had no brake lights of the car ahead to warn him, found himself having to brake hard and swerve left all at the same time, mid-corner, without any obvious difficulty.

Right from the very start of the video you can see that the road ahead goes out of sight, but the driver doesn't react until far too late. He wasn't watching where he was going and that's all there is to it, for me.

Fwiw, I used to participate in road rallying in that part of the world, many years ago. The leading crews were all in 400bhp Imprezas, all driving flat out, on those very roads, at night, all night. It was bloody brilliant. Were people crashing all night long? No they weren't, and fwiw the extra insurance we needed to participate in timed events was dirt cheap also. smile
^ This.

janesmith1950

6,399 posts

49 months

Friday 27th March
quotequote all
WinstonWolf said:
Good job you're not involved in aviation safety then wink
Good job the guy here was in a car and not a plane, then.

Stupidity aside, the police have their own collision investigation units. They're there at the time the accident took place and their investigation is exhaustive as it's designed not only to look for the cause(s) of the accident but also to rule out potential causes.

I appreciate there is a crowd dying to say "there by the grace of god, it could happen to any one of us" and blame every little thing other than the driver, to compound their confirmation bias. The video posted is like catnip to such people.

Criticising the video doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't learn from accidents. What it does mean in my case, is that it's trying to be helpful but clearly having an opposite effect. People are coming away from the video and saying it's partly the road's fault, that the punishment is harsh and so on. It reinforces the petrolheads' belief that it wasn't all the driving, it was partly not the driver's fault.

I've been through what the driver here has gone through, I was that person. I drove too fast, the road did nothing wrong. The same has happened here. No end of YouTubers will change that.

eldar

14,196 posts

150 months

Friday 27th March
quotequote all
WinstonWolf said:
Good job you're not involved in aviation safety then wink
You likewise if you place so much faith in a random youtube poster.

kiseca

7,974 posts

173 months

Friday 27th March
quotequote all
janesmith1950 said:
I appreciate there is a crowd dying to say "there by the grace of god, it could happen to any one of us" and blame every little thing other than the driver, to compound their confirmation bias. The video posted is like catnip to such people.
Noone on here has said the driver was faultless.


janesmith1950 said:
Criticising the video doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't learn from accidents. What it does mean in my case, is that it's trying to be helpful but clearly having an opposite effect. People are coming away from the video and saying it's partly the road's fault, that the punishment is harsh and so on. It reinforces the petrolheads' belief that it wasn't all the driving, it was partly not the driver's fault.

I've been through what the driver here has gone through, I was that person. I drove too fast, the road did nothing wrong. The same has happened here. No end of YouTubers will change that.
If a section of road makes accidents more likely, even if the accident will always be down to driver error as a root cause, you can save lives by changing that road, but to do so you need to acknowledge that some roads are easier to crash on than others. The youtube video states that while they were there filming, a few cars crossed the centreline. None of them crashed either, but neither would the driver here had there not been oncoming traffic to hit. It's luck, good or bad, but the road presents an opportunity for an accident to a driver who is out to enjoy a drive, rather than excercising a bit more caution on a commute from A to B, not caring about the road or the car they are in and just pottering along.

It will cost lives to ignore the fact that the conditions can contribute to an accident and do nothing to make the road safer or warn motorists of the danger on that corner.

The fact that changes have already been made to that corner by the time the youtuber got there suggests that the investigators felt it needed to be made safer. Doesn't excuse the driver. It's our responsibility to be able to manage surprising or unpredictable road conditions within reason. But even so, what's better? Prosecute the next driver after they've injured someone, or change the corner so that the next driver doesn't crash in the first place?