Subaru vs bike head on collision.

Subaru vs bike head on collision.

Author
Discussion

Dont like rolls

3,701 posts

9 months

Friday 3rd April
quotequote all
Countdown said:
Was there any difference between the capabilities of the respective cars which meant that one was duty-bound to crash and the other wasnt?
Highly likely that there is/was.

vonhosen

36,616 posts

172 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
And the car you are driving & it's handling characteristics are a consideration for......the driver in making their assessments.

Dont like rolls

3,701 posts

9 months

Friday 3rd April
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
And the car you are driving & it's handling characteristics are a consideration for......the driver in making their assessments.
Thank you for the agreement with what I said.

Leptons

4,224 posts

131 months

Friday 3rd April
quotequote all
Dont like rolls said:
Countdown said:
Was there any difference between the capabilities of the respective cars which meant that one was duty-bound to crash and the other wasnt?
Highly likely that there is/was.
Already been pointed out that the Subaru was lowered. A lowered car with stiff suspension on the strines is not pleasant driving.

I took my completely standard clio 172 (Wearing Michelin PS3’s) down there not long after it happened and 40/45 mph was plenty Around that bend.

Dont like rolls

3,701 posts

9 months

Friday 3rd April
quotequote all
Leptons said:
Dont like rolls said:
Countdown said:
Was there any difference between the capabilities of the respective cars which meant that one was duty-bound to crash and the other wasnt?
Highly likely that there is/was.
Already been pointed out that the Subaru was lowered. A lowered car with stiff suspension on the strines is not pleasant driving.

I took my completely standard clio 172 (Wearing Michelin PS3’s) down there not long after it happened and 40/45 mph was plenty Around that bend.
Clio 172 is quite "stiff" ? (don't know, never driven one)

Stiff suspension is a dangerous thing as much as the car/positioning etc.....as we see in this crash.

janesmith1950

6,858 posts

50 months

Friday 3rd April
quotequote all
Dont like rolls said:
Clio 172 is quite "stiff" ? (don't know, never driven one)

Stiff suspension is a dangerous thing as much as the car/positioning etc.....as we see in this crash.
The only dangerous thing in the incident here was the crashing driver's inexplicable failure to make a straightforward corner whilst staying in lane.

As has been repeated as nausuem, if the road is springing surprises at you, without extraordinary circumstances, you're going too quickly.

No number of videos analysing cambers and road surfaces there is going to make it anybody else's fault than 100% the driver's. Nobody driving competently and carefully would have found themselves accidentally on the wrong side of that piece of road.

Waffling on about aircraft accidents is as relevant here as the opening hours of the nearest library. Roads are imperfect in design and execution, as are the people we share them with in close quarters. The environments are totally different. If you're going to take a principle from the comparison, it's that we should try to understand the causes and learn from them. Fortunately, we have, as the Police investigated the scene and decided neither the road nor car were responsible, other than the nut holding the steering wheel.

The last time I'll say it for fear of boring the world, videos like the one posted are not really of much help. They only serve to reinforce the notion in some people, that the driver was to some degree unlucky in how the road conspired to make him crash. We are expected to negotiate the roads despite and in concert with their imperfections. If you analysed almost any 5 miles of road in this country, you would find multiple instances of poor road design or condition. In the words of a crooner, it's not unusual...

Countdown

27,453 posts

151 months

Friday 3rd April
quotequote all
Leptons said:
Dont like rolls said:
Countdown said:
Was there any difference between the capabilities of the respective cars which meant that one was duty-bound to crash and the other wasnt?
Highly likely that there is/was.
Already been pointed out that the Subaru was lowered. A lowered car with stiff suspension on the strines is not pleasant driving.

I took my completely standard clio 172 (Wearing Michelin PS3’s) down there not long after it happened and 40/45 mph was plenty Around that bend.
Did that take the driver completely unawares mid-bend?
Is it reasonable for a competent driver to be familiar with the capabilities of his/her car?
Should the local council put signs up warning people whose cars have lowered/stiffened suspension?

768

6,717 posts

51 months

Friday 3rd April
quotequote all
janesmith1950 said:
repeated as nausuem
I agree with this bit.

janesmith1950

6,858 posts

50 months

Friday 3rd April
quotequote all
768 said:
I agree with this bit.
Being fair most contentious threads end up the same way. smile

Leptons

4,224 posts

131 months

Friday 3rd April
quotequote all
Countdown said:
Did that take the driver completely unawares mid-bend?
Is it reasonable for a competent driver to be familiar with the capabilities of his/her car?
Should the local council put signs up warning people whose cars have lowered/stiffened suspension?
All true of course.

carinaman

15,314 posts

127 months

Friday 3rd April
quotequote all
I found both videos useful and thought provoking. I am a mere mortal not a driving god.

Leptons

4,224 posts

131 months

Friday 3rd April
quotequote all
Dont like rolls said:
Clio 172 is quite "stiff" ? (don't know, never driven one)
Not really no, quite compliant on the roads around here!

Dont like rolls

3,701 posts

9 months

Friday 3rd April
quotequote all
Countdown said:
Did that take the driver completely unawares mid-bend?
Is it reasonable for a competent driver to be familiar with the capabilities of his/her car?
Should the local council put signs up warning people whose cars have lowered/stiffened suspension?
Not claimed the driver is lacking the blame, he is 100%

Yes, but then this happens

No, the driver should drive to the cars capability, which with "stiff cars" is often exceptional limited with broken surfaces/ripples in tarmac etc (which we see here)

Gad-Westy

10,216 posts

168 months

Friday 3rd April
quotequote all
janesmith1950 said:
he only dangerous thing in the incident here was the crashing driver's inexplicable failure to make a straightforward corner whilst staying in lane.

As has been repeated as nausuem, if the road is springing surprises at you, without extraordinary circumstances, you're going too quickly.

No number of videos analysing cambers and road surfaces there is going to make it anybody else's fault than 100% the driver's. Nobody driving competently and carefully would have found themselves accidentally on the wrong side of that piece of road.

Waffling on about aircraft accidents is as relevant here as the opening hours of the nearest library. Roads are imperfect in design and execution, as are the people we share them with in close quarters. The environments are totally different. If you're going to take a principle from the comparison, it's that we should try to understand the causes and learn from them. Fortunately, we have, as the Police investigated the scene and decided neither the road nor car were responsible, other than the nut holding the steering wheel.

The last time I'll say it for fear of boring the world, videos like the one posted are not really of much help. They only serve to reinforce the notion in some people, that the driver was to some degree unlucky in how the road conspired to make him crash. We are expected to negotiate the roads despite and in concert with their imperfections. If you analysed almost any 5 miles of road in this country, you would find multiple instances of poor road design or condition. In the words of a crooner, it's not unusual...
Whilst I agree to an extent, as a country (and we are not alone) we have obviously gone some way down the route of protecting drivers from themselves. Whether this be in the form of vehicle safety standards, driver competence standards or road design. If you simply take the stance that for any given accident you just point the finger at one guilty party, then you haven't really done anything at all to prevent that accident occurring again, other than removing that particular driver from the road for a short while. So the bit I agree with is that the driver was going too fast and didn't therefore give himself time to deal with what the road presented to him. His fault? Yes and he's paying the price, as is sadly, the motorcyclist. When it comes to learning from this and really that means stopping it happening again, it does seem surprising to me that that bend is not signed in any way. You would normally expect either a warning sign on approach or hatching on the outside of the bend. It feels like that accident could happen again, easily, so why not take that lesson away from this and improve the situation for the next poor would-be motorcyclist? For the sake of sticking a sign up as a minimum it feels like an obvious thing to do.

vonhosen

36,616 posts

172 months

Friday 3rd April
quotequote all
Gad-Westy said:
janesmith1950 said:
he only dangerous thing in the incident here was the crashing driver's inexplicable failure to make a straightforward corner whilst staying in lane.

As has been repeated as nausuem, if the road is springing surprises at you, without extraordinary circumstances, you're going too quickly.

No number of videos analysing cambers and road surfaces there is going to make it anybody else's fault than 100% the driver's. Nobody driving competently and carefully would have found themselves accidentally on the wrong side of that piece of road.

Waffling on about aircraft accidents is as relevant here as the opening hours of the nearest library. Roads are imperfect in design and execution, as are the people we share them with in close quarters. The environments are totally different. If you're going to take a principle from the comparison, it's that we should try to understand the causes and learn from them. Fortunately, we have, as the Police investigated the scene and decided neither the road nor car were responsible, other than the nut holding the steering wheel.

The last time I'll say it for fear of boring the world, videos like the one posted are not really of much help. They only serve to reinforce the notion in some people, that the driver was to some degree unlucky in how the road conspired to make him crash. We are expected to negotiate the roads despite and in concert with their imperfections. If you analysed almost any 5 miles of road in this country, you would find multiple instances of poor road design or condition. In the words of a crooner, it's not unusual...
Whilst I agree to an extent, as a country (and we are not alone) we have obviously gone some way down the route of protecting drivers from themselves. Whether this be in the form of vehicle safety standards, driver competence standards or road design. If you simply take the stance that for any given accident you just point the finger at one guilty party, then you haven't really done anything at all to prevent that accident occurring again, other than removing that particular driver from the road for a short while. So the bit I agree with is that the driver was going too fast and didn't therefore give himself time to deal with what the road presented to him. His fault? Yes and he's paying the price, as is sadly, the motorcyclist. When it comes to learning from this and really that means stopping it happening again, it does seem surprising to me that that bend is not signed in any way. You would normally expect either a warning sign on approach or hatching on the outside of the bend. It feels like that accident could happen again, easily, so why not take that lesson away from this and improve the situation for the next poor would-be motorcyclist? For the sake of sticking a sign up as a minimum it feels like an obvious thing to do.
That has a tendency to happen where mistakes resulting in collisions are made often enough at a single location to justify it
It also, of course, doesn't have a tendency to happen on the basis of a single collision in the main.

janesmith1950

6,858 posts

50 months

Friday 3rd April
quotequote all
Does anyone with local knowledge know if changes have been made to the bend or approach?

Europa1

10,249 posts

143 months

Friday 3rd April
quotequote all
768 said:
janesmith1950 said:
repeated as nausuem
I agree with this bit.
I don't. It's 'ad nauseam'.

janesmith1950

6,858 posts

50 months

Friday 3rd April
quotequote all
Europa1 said:
I don't. It's 'ad nauseam'.
Phone guilty of auto-correct typo. Couldn't be arsed to go back once it'd posted! Obvious what it meant though, isn't it.


echazfraz

514 posts

102 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)

All of this, all day, twice on Sundays and with cherries on top. It's the argument that I made previously (so clearly I'd support it).

kiseca

8,008 posts

174 months

Friday 3rd April
quotequote all
janesmith1950 said:
768 said:
I agree with this bit.
Being fair most contentious threads end up the same way. smile
Yes, it happens when posters ignore eachother and just keep posting the same statement over and over again.