Subaru vs bike head on collision.
Discussion
blade7 said:
This reminds me of a thread a few years back, where the poster lost control on a wet dual carriageway, and hit a stationary car on the grass bank that had done the same thing earlier. Standing water was the excuse given for the 2 cars coming to grief at exactly the same spot. The fact that probably thousands of other cars and trucks passed safely by wasn't relevant apparently.
The water presents a hazard. The fact that 2 fail to negotiate it and <complete guess but substantially more than 2> negotiate it successfully, in a single night, is significant.There isn't enough data there to make a judgement but if you find that on average, every time you get enough rain to cause standing water there, one car will spin off and crash, you have a hazard that over time is going to continue to put lives at risk both of the driver who fails to negotiate the hazard, and the drivers around them at the time.
The people who spin off made a mistake. They aren't automatically s
t drivers, we're all capable of making mistakes. Next time it rains, the two that spin off could be two that made it through the previous time, except this time they're distracted by something, or more confident because last time nothing happened, or they're a bit tired or not fully fit.....You can't stop drivers, even good ones, making a bad judgement from time to time. We have enough drivers on the roads doing enough miles that the level of perfection in driver training and skills needed would be unachievable. Far easier, and more effective, to stop the road flooding. Even if it is 2 out of every 9999.
Humans are by our nature not good at assessing risk. That's a widely accepted statement in psychology. I'll bet most accidents happened when someone thought they were driving with a sufficient safety margin, and found out the hard way that they weren't. And what worries me is how many drivers seem to think they're too good to do that. Or they've been driving for 30 years and never crashed and that's all down to them and their own skill or habits. It isn't. It's just that driving, overall, is a very safe thing to do. So safe that 2 in thousands stands out as a bad night.
Looking at it again several times it strikes me more and more it was driver error.
Why?
It's just the way the car goes completely over the other side of the road, not drifting over slightly...completely over.
Also where is the movement of the car as the driver realises he's overcooked and tries to correct it?
As far as I could see he didn't even see the bike till it was nearly into him and there didn't seem to be any attempt to swerve out of the way.
Consider the action of the second driver who drifts over maybe a foot or so but still is in control of his car enough to swerve and miss the biker lying in the road.
GravelBen said:
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
https://youtu.be/_5q8zS7iMgA
dont believe the driver went to prison.
superlightr said:
GravelBen said:
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
https://youtu.be/_5q8zS7iMgA
dont believe the driver went to prison.
That because it was Darren 28 D&B enthusiast who has tattoos and likes cars and not Betty , retired florist, 68 with greyed hair
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi... - confirmed - NO PROSECUTION - just an AWARENESS COURSE
could not make it up!!!!!
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.A genuine question, as I don't know the particular details of the court case.
kiseca said:
blade7 said:
This reminds me of a thread a few years back, where the poster lost control on a wet dual carriageway, and hit a stationary car on the grass bank that had done the same thing earlier. Standing water was the excuse given for the 2 cars coming to grief at exactly the same spot. The fact that probably thousands of other cars and trucks passed safely by wasn't relevant apparently.
The water presents a hazard. The fact that 2 fail to negotiate it and <complete guess but substantially more than 2> negotiate it successfully, in a single night, is significant.There isn't enough data there to make a judgement
blade7 said:
kiseca said:
blade7 said:
This reminds me of a thread a few years back, where the poster lost control on a wet dual carriageway, and hit a stationary car on the grass bank that had done the same thing earlier. Standing water was the excuse given for the 2 cars coming to grief at exactly the same spot. The fact that probably thousands of other cars and trucks passed safely by wasn't relevant apparently.
The water presents a hazard. The fact that 2 fail to negotiate it and <complete guess but substantially more than 2> negotiate it successfully, in a single night, is significant.There isn't enough data there to make a judgement
carinaman said:
blade7 said:
kiseca said:
blade7 said:
This reminds me of a thread a few years back, where the poster lost control on a wet dual carriageway, and hit a stationary car on the grass bank that had done the same thing earlier. Standing water was the excuse given for the 2 cars coming to grief at exactly the same spot. The fact that probably thousands of other cars and trucks passed safely by wasn't relevant apparently.
The water presents a hazard. The fact that 2 fail to negotiate it and <complete guess but substantially more than 2> negotiate it successfully, in a single night, is significant.There isn't enough data there to make a judgement
blade7 said:
My A4 has that and quattro, it's much better in the wet/snow on new tyres, than old ones with 2mm tread on them.
I considered purchasing a new motorcycle a few weeks ago. I'd have swapped the OE tyres for replacements that warm up quicker and perform better in the wet. I'd not considered PCP but swapping the unused OE tyres back on at the end of the PCP term would've made sense.blade7 said:
carinaman said:
blade7 said:
kiseca said:
blade7 said:
This reminds me of a thread a few years back, where the poster lost control on a wet dual carriageway, and hit a stationary car on the grass bank that had done the same thing earlier. Standing water was the excuse given for the 2 cars coming to grief at exactly the same spot. The fact that probably thousands of other cars and trucks passed safely by wasn't relevant apparently.
The water presents a hazard. The fact that 2 fail to negotiate it and <complete guess but substantially more than 2> negotiate it successfully, in a single night, is significant.There isn't enough data there to make a judgement
BrassMan said:
Aquaplaning? As Chestrockwell will tell you, ESP does no good if the tyres aren't touching the tarmac.
My point related to the difference between new v old tyres.BrassMan said:
Aquaplaning? As Chestrockwell will tell you, ESP does no good if the tyres aren't touching the tarmac.
or if the monkey driving has no clue as to what is aquaplaning or how to avoid or control it, mixed tyres tread depths plus an illegal tyre, excess speed in the wet, at night and standing water but its the car's fault for being twitchy.Edited by superlightr on Friday 27th March 20:44
Mandat said:
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.A genuine question, as I don't know the particular details of the court case.
vonhosen said:
V8RX7 said:
heebeegeetee said:
He doesn’t explain how most people drive around that typical country bend without a problem. Imo he gives the impression that it’s unlikely anyone would manage safely.
It may be that in most cases there isn't anyone coming the other wayA camera monitoring it for a few days would quickly determine the true picture.
The camera footage alone wouldn't offer much.
blade7 said:
Perhaps the 2 cars were on tyres that were legal but due for replacement.... I've experienced significantly less grip under those circumstances.
Anything below 4mm tread depth are severely compromised where standing water is a factor. People think if the tyre is 1.6mm or above they are good as new because that's the legal minimum, that's far from the truth. The basic tyre design and tread pattern also play a major role, and that also varies as the tyre wears.It seems to me also that modern road surfaces are getting far worse for water drainage, sections of road like the M6 bypass are lethal in heavy rain, its common to see cars spin off.
jsf said:
blade7 said:
Perhaps the 2 cars were on tyres that were legal but due for replacement.... I've experienced significantly less grip under those circumstances.
Anything below 4mm tread depth are severely compromised where standing water is a factor. People think if the tyre is 1.6mm or above they are good as new because that's the legal minimum, that's far from the truth. The basic tyre design and tread pattern also play a major role, and that also varies as the tyre wears.It seems to me also that modern road surfaces are getting far worse for water drainage, sections of road like the M6 bypass are lethal in heavy rain, its common to see cars spin off.
Countdown said:
gazza285 said:
Can I be the first to suggest that it is the motorcyclist’s fault, because I am surprised it hasn’t come up yet.
To be fair if he hadn't been there none of this would have happened. Shall we say 50:50? 
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff