Subaru vs bike head on collision.

Subaru vs bike head on collision.

Author
Discussion

blade7

9,418 posts

169 months

Sunday 29th March
quotequote all
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.
I've replaced the last 2 sets of tyres on my weekend car when there was still 2-3mm on them. I only use the car in the dry, but around 6 years old their grip wasn't quite as good.

gazza285

6,036 posts

161 months

Sunday 29th March
quotequote all
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? biggrin
I don’t think that is fair, not nearly enough victim blaming, let’s call it 70/30, same ratio as the road/ driver.

blade7

9,418 posts

169 months

Sunday 29th March
quotequote all
gazza285 said:
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? biggrin
I don’t think that is fair, not nearly enough victim blaming, let’s call it 70/30, same ratio as the road/ driver.
Perhaps it's fortunate for the biker there was dashcam footage.

Countdown

26,776 posts

149 months

Sunday 29th March
quotequote all
gazza285 said:
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? biggrin
I don’t think that is fair, not nearly enough victim blaming, let’s call it 70/30, same ratio as the road/ driver.
Good point. we really need to see how the biker was riding during the previous 10 minutes. Potentially he could have done something that provoked the driver to drive into him? Or maybe he could have done something later and the driver was simply getting his retaliation in first? Do we know if the biker had any points on his licence?

biggrin

MJK 24

5,488 posts

189 months

Thursday 2nd April
quotequote all
The second part seems to have been uploaded now.

https://youtu.be/7D_VWovtBwI

jsf

16,531 posts

189 months

Thursday 2nd April
quotequote all
It just illustrates the common sense principle that you cant put down in writing the best approach to handing a car, there are far too many variables.

carinaman

14,983 posts

125 months

Thursday 2nd April
quotequote all
jsf said:
It just illustrates the common sense principle that you cant put down in writing the best approach to handing a car, there are far too many variables.
It's a useful reminder at 6 mins. 30 secs. in.

Pica-Pica

7,081 posts

37 months

Thursday 2nd April
quotequote all
MJK 24 said:
The second part seems to have been uploaded now.

https://youtu.be/7D_VWovtBwI
I have read that. The bit about (historically) being taught to apply throttle to stabilise the vehicle through the bend is the main point he contests. A case (he might say) of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing?
Some of the issues (from the driving manuals he quotes) about being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear on your side of the road, is nonsense to me. These driving book writers have never met a vehicle that takes the whole width of the road round a blind bend. Again these books say about not crossing the centre line. Why not if it improves your view, and allows you to see (in the bend in question) the damaged edge earlier? At that point you would be turning in more, and a decision to go onto the (narrow) strip of grass rather than hit the bike is easier to take and accomplish.

RobM77

33,993 posts

187 months

Friday 3rd April
quotequote all
Pica-Pica said:
MJK 24 said:
The second part seems to have been uploaded now.

https://youtu.be/7D_VWovtBwI
I have read that. The bit about (historically) being taught to apply throttle to stabilise the vehicle through the bend is the main point he contests. A case (he might say) of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing?
Some of the issues (from the driving manuals he quotes) about being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear on your side of the road, is nonsense to me. These driving book writers have never met a vehicle that takes the whole width of the road round a blind bend. Again these books say about not crossing the centre line. Why not if it improves your view, and allows you to see (in the bend in question) the damaged edge earlier? At that point you would be turning in more, and a decision to go onto the (narrow) strip of grass rather than hit the bike is easier to take and accomplish.
This often gets debated over on the Advanced Driving PH pages. The problem is that most advanced driving is not skill based, it's system based, and easily teachable. Actual car control takes a long time to learn and master, and a little knowledge can be a bad thing. Imagine the world of trouble that would open up if you tried to teach using the brakes to control the car? I do it, but only because I've spent 20 years of competitive motorsport obsessing over doing it well and perfecting it to try to go faster. Like heel and toe or fixed input steering, it's a basic part of how I drive now and it would take more effort not to do it.

Incidentally, many advanced drivers don't think track skills transfer to the road, but I firmly believe that they do. My reasoning is that driving a car on track fast takes two skills: 1) car control, which obviously shouldn't feature in safer road driving unless something goes terribly wrong. This skill is teachable and is pretty easily learnt. 2) Creating a high limit. This is what takes a lifetime to master and is what really separates racing drivers from each other. The idea is to create as high a limit as possible for the car in the corner by using grip from both ends of the car in a smooth and controlled manner. The idea being that Schumacher could take a corner at 90mph, where his rivals could only manage 89mph. A good club racer might be 88mph, and Joe Bloggs 60mph. Back at a safe speed on the road, for example 55mph, it's easy to see that the margin for error is much greater for a skilled track driver. All it takes is a bump, the car going light over a crest, a deer to run out, etc etc, and some of those drivers I've listed are going to be ok, and others not - nothing to do with reason (1) above, and everything to do with (2). As above though, developing ability in (2) takes a lot of coaching, feel for the car, trial and error, and self-analysis to learn, and is not worth it for advanced road driving when the same amount of time spent on other skills has a much greater effect on overall safety.

Edited by RobM77 on Friday 3rd April 10:43

janesmith1950

6,183 posts

48 months

Friday 3rd April
quotequote all
Advanced road driving systems are designed to keep you from getting into trouble. Driving on the road is predominantly about getting from A to B safely ahead of quickly.

If you have to rely on controlling the car at or beyond the limits of adhesion you're already outside of the system. This might be down to your own actions or in response to somebody else's.

Learning advanced car control (by definition anything beyond that necessary to pass the DSA test) can bring benefits but also risk. The risk is attitude. Once drivers believe their car control abilities introduce a safety net, their attitude to operating at the edges of the system changes.

Which is why I'd always prioritise learning use of advanced systems ahead of advanced car control.

This is speaking as someone who's done plenty of track time, ARDS, skidpans, advanced road courses and so on. There are many, many people more skilled at all aspects than me, however I've learned (the very hard way), that road driving should not be about driving at or even very near the limit.

RobM77

33,993 posts

187 months

Friday 3rd April
quotequote all
janesmith1950 said:
Advanced road driving systems are designed to keep you from getting into trouble. Driving on the road is predominantly about getting from A to B safely ahead of quickly.

If you have to rely on controlling the car at or beyond the limits of adhesion you're already outside of the system. This might be down to your own actions or in response to somebody else's.

Learning advanced car control (by definition anything beyond that necessary to pass the DSA test) can bring benefits but also risk. The risk is attitude. Once drivers believe their car control abilities introduce a safety net, their attitude to operating at the edges of the system changes.

Which is why I'd always prioritise learning use of advanced systems ahead of advanced car control.

This is speaking as someone who's done plenty of track time, ARDS, skidpans, advanced road courses and so on. There are many, many people more skilled at all aspects than me, however I've learned (the very hard way), that road driving should not be about driving at or even very near the limit.
yes I covered all of this in my post above (just reworded slightly to clarify, in case it wasn't clear).

To summarise what I said: car control is not just about the relatively easy skill of simply controlling a car at high slip angles, as you do on a skid pan (note though that skid pans only teach low speed car control, at high speed it all changes); it's also (mainly!) about generating a high limit for the car, which on the road at a given safe speed gives an appropriately skilled driver a much greater margin for error, plus of course it's easier on the car. However, learning this latter skill takes a very long time and a lot of hard work, and spending that same time on developing other advanced road skills, such as observation, has a much greater impact on safety.

Edited by RobM77 on Friday 3rd April 10:58

J4CKO

30,176 posts

153 months

Friday 3rd April
quotequote all
Watched the first one, it made some good points but part two I got about 5 mins in before I had to turn off, was getting strong hints of Walt, hi viz, walkie talkie despite no actual official capacity other than having a website that sells driving tuition.

The guy was going too fast, misjudged the bend and fked up, and unluckily there was a bike on the other side of the road, the rider of which got to take a short flight.

Its an NSL road, the National Speed Limit limit is sixty for road that arent motorways, its a limit if conditions allow, not a target velocity.


There are loads of roads I know that are NSL but have bends you cant take at sixty or anywhere near as, guess what you understeer into the other side of the road. The Suabaru was doing over ten percent more than the maximum.

I suspect plenty of vehicles use that road and manage not to have head on crashes, and that will be mainly as the drivers will err on the side of caution if they dont know the road and slow down, or will know the road and adjust their speed to something more appropriate, like 40 or so.

Can drag out as many manuals as you want and try to drive round it at sixty but the answer is to just slow down and accept that not every inch of the road network allows you to drive at the speed limit (or ten percent over)







Dr Jekyll

19,430 posts

214 months

Friday 3rd April
quotequote all
J4CKO said:
Watched the first one, it made some good points but part two I got about 5 mins in before I had to turn off, was getting strong hints of Walt, hi viz, walkie talkie despite no actual official capacity other than having a website that sells driving tuition.

The guy was going too fast, misjudged the bend and fked up, and unluckily there was a bike on the other side of the road, the rider of which got to take a short flight.

Its an NSL road, the National Speed Limit limit is sixty for road that aren't motorways or dual carriageways, its a limit if conditions allow, not a target velocity.


There are loads of roads I know that are NSL but have bends you cant take at sixty or anywhere near as, guess what you understeer into the other side of the road. The Suabaru was doing over ten percent more than the maximum.

I suspect plenty of vehicles use that road and manage not to have head on crashes, and that will be mainly as the drivers will err on the side of caution if they dont know the road and slow down, or will know the road and adjust their speed to something more appropriate, like 40 or so.

Can drag out as many manuals as you want and try to drive round it at sixty but the answer is to just slow down and accept that not every inch of the road network allows you to drive at the speed limit (or ten percent over)
Edited out of pedantry.

We all know he was going too fast, some of us are also interested in why he thought he could maintain 60ish into that bend so we might be able to avoid making the same error. This isn't the same as making excuses.







Edited by Dr Jekyll on Friday 3rd April 12:14

xjay1337

14,526 posts

71 months

Friday 3rd April
quotequote all
J4CKO said:
Watched the first one, it made some good points but part two I got about 5 mins in before I had to turn off, was getting strong hints of Walt, hi viz, walkie talkie despite no actual official capacity other than having a website that sells driving tuition.

The guy was going too fast, misjudged the bend and fked up, and unluckily there was a bike on the other side of the road, the rider of which got to take a short flight.

Its an NSL road, the National Speed Limit limit is sixty for road that arent motorways, its a limit if conditions allow, not a target velocity.


There are loads of roads I know that are NSL but have bends you cant take at sixty or anywhere near as, guess what you understeer into the other side of the road. The Suabaru was doing over ten percent more than the maximum.

I suspect plenty of vehicles use that road and manage not to have head on crashes, and that will be mainly as the drivers will err on the side of caution if they dont know the road and slow down, or will know the road and adjust their speed to something more appropriate, like 40 or so.

Can drag out as many manuals as you want and try to drive round it at sixty but the answer is to just slow down and accept that not every inch of the road network allows you to drive at the speed limit (or ten percent over)
What I don't think you're understanding is that a variety of factors lead to the incident on the subaru, one being excess speed but it was not the sole reason as explained in the video.
The lack of suitable signage, very poor road conditions, no sight lines, the fact that the rest of the road is open and flowing.

Also the chap in the video has a walkie talkie for communicating with people at the roadside I think, not that it matters - who cares.

The other thing that was being highlighted was the contradictory "advanced" driving books etc.

vonhosen

36,558 posts

170 months

Friday 3rd April
quotequote all
xjay1337 said:
J4CKO said:
Watched the first one, it made some good points but part two I got about 5 mins in before I had to turn off, was getting strong hints of Walt, hi viz, walkie talkie despite no actual official capacity other than having a website that sells driving tuition.

The guy was going too fast, misjudged the bend and fked up, and unluckily there was a bike on the other side of the road, the rider of which got to take a short flight.

Its an NSL road, the National Speed Limit limit is sixty for road that arent motorways, its a limit if conditions allow, not a target velocity.


There are loads of roads I know that are NSL but have bends you cant take at sixty or anywhere near as, guess what you understeer into the other side of the road. The Suabaru was doing over ten percent more than the maximum.

I suspect plenty of vehicles use that road and manage not to have head on crashes, and that will be mainly as the drivers will err on the side of caution if they dont know the road and slow down, or will know the road and adjust their speed to something more appropriate, like 40 or so.

Can drag out as many manuals as you want and try to drive round it at sixty but the answer is to just slow down and accept that not every inch of the road network allows you to drive at the speed limit (or ten percent over)
What I don't think you're understanding is that a variety of factors lead to the incident on the subaru, one being excess speed but it was not the sole reason as explained in the video.
The lack of suitable signage, very poor road conditions, no sight lines, the fact that the rest of the road is open and flowing.

Also the chap in the video has a walkie talkie for communicating with people at the roadside I think, not that it matters - who cares.

The other thing that was being highlighted was the contradictory "advanced" driving books etc.
You don't learn 'advanced' (I hate the term anyway) driving from books, or a forum. Seems to me from the 2nd video he is also being very selective about the teachings & not looking at full range of advice within the teachings but glibly selecting just a line in the aim of proving 'his point'.

If you like it's a bit like saying this


is an 'advanced' use of paint.

When more accurately this


is an 'advanced' use of paint.

Countdown

26,776 posts

149 months

Friday 3rd April
quotequote all
xjay1337 said:
What I don't think you're understanding is that a variety of factors lead to the incident on the subaru, one being excess speed but it was not the sole reason as explained in the video.
The lack of suitable signage, very poor road conditions, no sight lines, the fact that the rest of the road is open and flowing.
There are always a hundred and one factors for the driver to take into account. It's the job of the driver to take these into account and react accordingly. If the driver doesn't then it's driver error. There was nothing in that video that struck me as being "out of the ordinary" or something completely unexpected for a country road. If a meteorite had caused him to swerve into the opposite lane you might argue "fair play, that was unexpected" but things like poor roads or incomplete signage are not unusual and shouldn't adversely affect a competent driver.

As has already been mentioned several times - the driver before him didn't crash, the driver after him didn't crash. the road conditions and the signage stayed the same. The only difference was the driver.

xjay1337

14,526 posts

71 months

Friday 3rd April
quotequote all
Countdown said:
xjay1337 said:
What I don't think you're understanding is that a variety of factors lead to the incident on the subaru, one being excess speed but it was not the sole reason as explained in the video.
The lack of suitable signage, very poor road conditions, no sight lines, the fact that the rest of the road is open and flowing.
There are always a hundred and one factors for the driver to take into account. It's the job of the driver to take these into account and react accordingly. If the driver doesn't then it's driver error. There was nothing in that video that struck me as being "out of the ordinary" or something completely unexpected for a country road. If a meteorite had caused him to swerve into the opposite lane you might argue "fair play, that was unexpected" but things like poor roads or incomplete signage are not unusual and shouldn't adversely affect a competent driver.

As has already been mentioned several times - the driver before him didn't crash, the driver after him didn't crash. the road conditions and the signage stayed the same. The only difference was the driver.
I don't think anyone is saying it's not driver error ..............


As has been said before it's a more holistic approach to accident investigation.
Much more in keeping with aircraft accidents.
It might have been the pilots faults but very rarely is it SOLELY attributable to any individual, there are a collection of errors leading up to the crash.



vonhosen

36,558 posts

170 months

Friday 3rd April
quotequote all
xjay1337 said:
Countdown said:
xjay1337 said:
What I don't think you're understanding is that a variety of factors lead to the incident on the subaru, one being excess speed but it was not the sole reason as explained in the video.
The lack of suitable signage, very poor road conditions, no sight lines, the fact that the rest of the road is open and flowing.
There are always a hundred and one factors for the driver to take into account. It's the job of the driver to take these into account and react accordingly. If the driver doesn't then it's driver error. There was nothing in that video that struck me as being "out of the ordinary" or something completely unexpected for a country road. If a meteorite had caused him to swerve into the opposite lane you might argue "fair play, that was unexpected" but things like poor roads or incomplete signage are not unusual and shouldn't adversely affect a competent driver.

As has already been mentioned several times - the driver before him didn't crash, the driver after him didn't crash. the road conditions and the signage stayed the same. The only difference was the driver.
I don't think anyone is saying it's not driver error ..............


As has been said before it's a more holistic approach to accident investigation.
Much more in keeping with aircraft accidents.
It might have been the pilots faults but very rarely is it SOLELY attributable to any individual, there are a collection of errors leading up to the crash.

But the author of the video is in his second video claiming 'advanced' teachings are not helping him there.

If you run the original Police video & stop it at 14 seconds.
You can see the markings ahead are changing from centre line to hazard markings. You can see the change of surface.
You can see with lateral vision the back of the wall giving you an idea that you have a reasonably tight curve coming up & you can also see that it's likely to drop away from you too.

Stop it at 16 seconds.
The maxim is 'be able to stop on your own side of the road within the distance you can see to be clear (& reasonably expect to remain so). The teachings are also that you shouldn't be driving at 10/10ths on road, but at 8/10ths, so effectively stop within 80% of that space available to allow some safety margins. The driver is just not reacting sufficiently to the hazard in light of all of the above.

Stop it at 18 seconds.
Stop at the speed he is doing within 80% of that visible road surface on his side of the road?

Also no mention from the author of the four 'S' from the teachings.
Safe, System, Smooth, Speed
It's hierarchal.
Safety trumps System.
So if he has messed up the assessment & not left enough room to apply the System, then he has to do what Safety demands. So the teachings wouldn't insist (as claimed) that he enters that bend on the throttle, it would be enter on the brakes.

Dont like rolls

3,330 posts

7 months

Friday 3rd April
quotequote all
Countdown said:
As has already been mentioned several times - the driver before him didn't crash, the driver after him didn't crash. the road conditions and the signage stayed the same. The only difference was the driver.
Wrong, the car was different

Countdown

26,776 posts

149 months

Friday 3rd April
quotequote all
Dont like rolls said:
Countdown said:
As has already been mentioned several times - the driver before him didn't crash, the driver after him didn't crash. the road conditions and the signage stayed the same. The only difference was the driver.
Wrong, the car was different
Was there any difference between the capabilities of the respective cars which meant that one was duty-bound to crash and the other wasnt?