Subaru vs bike head on collision.

[xjay1337]

Again what Jane is doing is ignoring the fact no-one is absolving the driver of blame but taking a more wider view as the reasons as to the crash........

I understand that can be difficult to some to understand :-)

[Gad-Westy]

xjay1337 said:

Again what Jane is doing is ignoring the fact no-one is absolving the driver of blame but taking a more wider view as the reasons as to the crash........

I understand that can be difficult to some to understand :-)

Exactly this. In my industry if an accident took place and it caused someone a serious injury, it would not be enough to just simply say, Mr Bloggs made a mistake, we've sacked him, case closed. There would nearly always be reasonable measures taken to mitigate against something similar happening again. I guess the fact that there is apparently (not seen the vid) improved signage there might indicate that in this case, that has happened too.

[Dont like rolls]

xjay1337 said:

Again what Jane is doing is ignoring the fact no-one is absolving the driver of blame but taking a more wider view as the reasons as to the crash........

I understand that can be difficult to some to understand :-)

Please don't stop them shouting, they will get upset....

[768]

xjay1337 said:

Again what Jane is doing is ignoring the fact no-one is absolving the driver of blame but taking a more wider view as the reasons as to the crash........

I understand that can be difficult to some to understand :-)

Bad as that is, I think it's even worse than that.

The logical extension of the argument is that you must not drive anywhere. Because if a crash happens at any speed the only contributing factor can be excess speed. And the only way you can know if you're going to crash or not is by driving the road and finding out if you crash and then attributing it to excess speed.

[vonhosen]

768 said:

xjay1337 said:

Again what Jane is doing is ignoring the fact no-one is absolving the driver of blame but taking a more wider view as the reasons as to the crash........

I understand that can be difficult to some to understand :-)

Bad as that is, I think it's even worse than that.

The logical extension of the argument is that you must not drive anywhere. Because if a crash happens at any speed the only contributing factor can be excess speed. And the only way you can know if you're going to crash or not is by driving the road and finding out if you crash and then attributing it to excess speed.

But it doesn't come down to that does it?
The largest contributory factor in collisions is failing to look properly.

In each set of circumstances a thorough investigation takes place. It looks at all of the circumstances & considerations of the case, not just speed. It will look at how the driver acted within them circumstances. It's not just about the outcome, it's about what they should have reasonably expected with those circumstances & what they should reasonably have done with them.
Perfection or clairvoyance is not expected.

Example.
Here is a worse outcome for the victims, but not for the driver.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/5241798.stm

[768]

vonhosen said:

But it doesn't come down to that does it?

I'm suggesting it's a ridiculously narrow position, so of course I agree.

vonhosen said:

In each set of circumstances a thorough investigation takes place. It looks at all of the circumstances & considerations of the case, not just speed. It will look at how the driver acted within them circumstances. It's not just about the outcome, it's about what they should have reasonably expected with those circumstances & what they should reasonably have done with them.
Perfection or clairvoyance is not expected.

That's a very particular legal aspect to this, which is all good, but there's an even broader view I think most people are considering in looking at the circumstances though. Even if the driver is legally at fault it doesn't mean people can't suggest the road surface, for example, could be improved to prevent further accidents.

[Taylor James]

768 said:

vonhosen said:

But it doesn't come down to that does it?

I'm suggesting it's a ridiculously narrow position, so of course I agree.

vonhosen said:

In each set of circumstances a thorough investigation takes place. It looks at all of the circumstances & considerations of the case, not just speed. It will look at how the driver acted within them circumstances. It's not just about the outcome, it's about what they should have reasonably expected with those circumstances & what they should reasonably have done with them.
Perfection or clairvoyance is not expected.

That's a very particular legal aspect to this, which is all good, but there's an even broader view I think most people are considering in looking at the circumstances though. Even if the driver is legally at fault it doesn't mean people can't suggest the road surface, for example, could be improved to prevent further accidents.

Where do you stop (or start) with your last sentence though? I have no local knowledge and I might have missed it in a long thread such as this, but my understanding is that the corner in question is not a blackspot. There doesn't appear to be anything wrong with the signage, road surface or markings. We can't guarantee to make roads completely safe. It's interesting how accidents happen on motorways where, apart from a very few exceptions, there are no sharp turns or hidden bends and no trees to hit. As a result, people tend to rear end or side swipe other drivers or crash when entering or leaving motorways when more judgement is required. Include a human in an equation and you'll get human error.

Most of us will admit to have being caught out on occasion but speaking from personal experience it has always been my fault. Perhaps the best example of that would be when I first encountered a French slip road. Way, way tighter than anything I had encountered in my UK driving experience and I was lucky to get round it intact. I remember moaning to myself about the road layout but I know I just went into an unfamiliar situation far too quickly and that appears to have been what the driver here did too.

I'm certainly not advocating crawling around at a speed which will guarantee no errors but cheese off anyone behind you. The driver in question made a simple and common error and was unlucky in terms of the consequences.

[768]

Taylor James said:

Where do you stop (or start) with your last sentence though?

Wherever you want as long as there's acknowledgement of the range of options. Just because things could be improved doesn't mean it's warranted or desirable, but that's a different debate to closing the discussion down entirely because all thing accidents can be avoided by going slower, without any other consideration.

[vonhosen]

768 said:

Taylor James said:

Where do you stop (or start) with your last sentence though?

Wherever you want as long as there's acknowledgement of the range of options. Just because things could be improved doesn't mean it's warranted or desirable, but that's a different debate to closing the discussion down entirely because all thing accidents can be avoided by going slower, without any other consideration.

But changes to layout, surface, signage etc are considered at problem locations. They just don't follow from every collision.

[Taylor James]

768 said:

Taylor James said:

Where do you stop (or start) with your last sentence though?

Wherever you want as long as there's acknowledgement of the range of options. Just because things could be improved doesn't mean it's warranted or desirable, but that's a different debate to closing the discussion down entirely because all thing accidents can be avoided by going slower, without any other consideration.

I've not suggested that and I've not seen anyone who has. In the case under discussion, it's not even as if the driver needed to slow down by a huge amount.

[Countdown]

Gad-Westy said:

xjay1337 said:

Again what Jane is doing is ignoring the fact no-one is absolving the driver of blame but taking a more wider view as the reasons as to the crash........

I understand that can be difficult to some to understand :-)

Exactly this. In my industry if an accident took place and it caused someone a serious injury, it would not be enough to just simply say, Mr Bloggs made a mistake, we've sacked him, case closed. There would nearly always be reasonable measures taken to mitigate against something similar happening again. I guess the fact that there is apparently (not seen the vid) improved signage there might indicate that in this case, that has happened too.

I'm guessing that, in your industry, "Mr Bloggs" would be trained to a high level in the first place and probably subject to monitoring and CPD?

I used to work in a warehouse where one of my mates reversed a forklift into a wall. The floor was quite wet, the warehouse was ridiculously busy and Kelly from HR had been walking past in short skirt and high heels. Under ideal circumstances the floor wouldn't have been wet, and Anthony wouldn't have tried to handbrake-turn the forklift to impress Kelly.

Management didn't carry out an extensive review to look at all contributory factors. They didn't decide to employ a system to ensure that the floor was always dry or impose rules to insist that women shouldn't walk through the warehouse wearing short skirts. At a certain point you have to rely on people behaving sensibly. Anthony couldnt reasonably blame the wet floor or the busy warehouse - these were factors that a competent person should be able to leave enough of a safety margin to cope with.

[768]

vonhosen said:

But changes to layout, surface, signage etc are considered at problem locations. They just don't follow from every collision.

You're still talking about the public sector approach, which again is fine, but individuals are allowed to have their own thoughts, debates and take away their own lessons too.

[Taylor James]

768 said:

vonhosen said:

But changes to layout, surface, signage etc are considered at problem locations. They just don't follow from every collision.

You're still talking about the public sector approach, which again is fine, but individuals are allowed to have their own thoughts, debates and take away their own lessons too.

That's one of the reasons why you don't see warning signs on every sharp bend or hazard. You want peoole to make real time assessments, not rely on someone else to warn you about hazards.

[vonhosen]

768 said:

vonhosen said:

But changes to layout, surface, signage etc are considered at problem locations. They just don't follow from every collision.

You're still talking about the public sector approach, which again is fine, but individuals are allowed to have their own thoughts, debates and take away their own lessons too.

I was following on from your train.

768 said:

Even if the driver is legally at fault it doesn't mean people can't suggest the road surface, for example, could be improved to prevent further accidents.

If it's not public services who are going to be responsible for the decision to implement changes to the road surface then who?

Of course individuals can analyse & take what they want from any collision, but this whole debate (referring the two part YouTube analysis) is about supposed inadequate road surface/signage etc as a major contributory factor, which are public service considerations.

[xjay1337]

Taylor James said:

. There doesn't appear to be anything wrong with the signage, road surface or markings.

Clearly you haven't watched the video!

Road surface - poor - broken - approx 1/4 of the lane taken up by deep rutting, heavy undulations.

Signage - None to indicate a sharp corner , or to advise of the changing elevation - no corner signs

Markings - no slow markings. only a very late change of central line distance / spacing to indicate an upcoming hazard.

[vonhosen]

xjay1337 said:

Taylor James said:

. There doesn't appear to be anything wrong with the signage, road surface or markings.

Clearly you haven't watched the video!

Road surface - poor - broken - approx 1/4 of the lane taken up by deep rutting, heavy undulations.

Signage - None to indicate a sharp corner , or to advise of the changing elevation - no corner signs

Markings - no slow markings. only a very late change of central line distance / spacing to indicate an upcoming hazard.

And apparently some works have been done on the first & second points since the collision. But evidently following investigation they weren't considered major factors in causing the collision.

[ZX10R NIN]

From what I've seen there wasn't 1 huge factor in this collision just lots of little ones that lead to this collision but looking at that corner I can imagine there have been hundreds of overshoots on that corner that have passed with close calls or no incidents.

[Taylor James]

xjay1337 said:

Taylor James said:

. There doesn't appear to be anything wrong with the signage, road surface or markings.

Clearly you haven't watched the video!

Road surface - poor - broken - approx 1/4 of the lane taken up by deep rutting, heavy undulations.

Signage - None to indicate a sharp corner , or to advise of the changing elevation - no corner signs

Markings - no slow markings. only a very late change of central line distance / spacing to indicate an upcoming hazard.

Road surface is visible and noticeable to an observant driver. No sign does not mean no sharp bend or hazard (see my previous post).

None of the above was unique to that stretch of that road on that day. All compounded by excess speed which was a conscious choice.

Driver error which plenty would make. He was unlucky with the consequences.

[f1nn]

I’ve not read the entire thread as, well, I don’t really see what there is to discuss.

The drivers lack of observation led to an inappropriate use of speed for that particular section of road.

Unfortunately, on this occasion it resulted in an RTA and injuries to the biker.

No need for the stewards enquiry.

[CoolHands]

xjay1337 said:

Clearly you haven't watched the video!

Road surface - poor - broken - approx 1/4 of the lane taken up by deep rutting, heavy undulations.

Signage - None to indicate a sharp corner , or to advise of the changing elevation - no corner signs

Markings - no slow markings. only a very late change of central line distance / spacing to indicate an upcoming hazard.

all of which is common for country lanes so in context there is nothing unusual about that bend, and appropriate driving would have never seen a problem.