The "S**t Driving Caught On Cam" Thread (Vol 5)
Discussion
Taylor James said:
I did ask the question because I like to think one thing I am pretty good at is hazard perception but I just couldn't see any learning in that clip. I frequently cover the brakes approaching junctions but I'm struggling to see how the cammer could have avoided that one. I can imagine the mental's reaction was that the cammer was going too fast. That seems to be the default defence of people who aren't looking where they're going and at what else is on the road.
Me too with regards to hazard perception, hence why I suggested 10%. I always look for ways I can avoid collisions, and so far it has done me well.I've had 1 collision since I started driving in 2013, and I was stationary in a car park when someone reversed into me.
If I assign that one 10% to myself, you'll surely all take the piss, but it's true, I do. Why? Because I didn't hit the horn, which might have made them look in the mirror and see me stopped.
For the cammer here, maybe it's 1%, the number isn't really important, my point was that the cammer wasn't entirely blameless, unless everyone is suggesting that there is absolutely nothing that the cammer could physically have done to avoid the collision?
For instance, it looks like he may have even had the cruise control on, and it certainly doesn't look like he braked, even after the collision. Which would make a little more sense if he did have the cruise on.
But it's all speculation, of course. I just can't believe I got jumped on for suggesting that there might have been something he could have done to avoid it. I would absolutely agree that it's the other drivers fault, and I assume the insurance companies did too.
Of course, I'm willing to accept I may be wrong by the way, so you can all calm down.
OllieJolly said:
Me too with regards to hazard perception, hence why I suggested 10%. I always look for ways I can avoid collisions, and so far it has done me well.
I've had 1 collision since I started driving in 2013, and I was stationary in a car park when someone reversed into me.
If I assign that one 10% to myself, you'll surely all take the piss, but it's true, I do. Why? Because I didn't hit the horn, which might have made them look in the mirror and see me stopped.
For the cammer here, maybe it's 1%, the number isn't really important, my point was that the cammer wasn't entirely blameless, unless everyone is suggesting that there is absolutely nothing that the cammer could physically have done to avoid the collision?
For instance, it looks like he may have even had the cruise control on, and it certainly doesn't look like he braked, even after the collision. Which would make a little more sense if he did have the cruise on.
But it's all speculation, of course. I just can't believe I got jumped on for suggesting that there might have been something he could have done to avoid it. I would absolutely agree that it's the other drivers fault, and I assume the insurance companies did too.
Of course, I'm willing to accept I may be wrong by the way, so you can all calm down.
I’ll risk it all and agree with you. He wasn’t at fault at all, but looking at it I think it was avoidable. I've had 1 collision since I started driving in 2013, and I was stationary in a car park when someone reversed into me.
If I assign that one 10% to myself, you'll surely all take the piss, but it's true, I do. Why? Because I didn't hit the horn, which might have made them look in the mirror and see me stopped.
For the cammer here, maybe it's 1%, the number isn't really important, my point was that the cammer wasn't entirely blameless, unless everyone is suggesting that there is absolutely nothing that the cammer could physically have done to avoid the collision?
For instance, it looks like he may have even had the cruise control on, and it certainly doesn't look like he braked, even after the collision. Which would make a little more sense if he did have the cruise on.
But it's all speculation, of course. I just can't believe I got jumped on for suggesting that there might have been something he could have done to avoid it. I would absolutely agree that it's the other drivers fault, and I assume the insurance companies did too.
Of course, I'm willing to accept I may be wrong by the way, so you can all calm down.
This screenshot here (would have been in his peripherals a moment earlier) id like to think the Polo would have caught my eye and think “they’re not stopping”. To me It didn’t actually look like the cam car braked at all.
[url]
|https://thumbsnap.com/eFMoe7Xj[/urlOllieJolly said:
Me too with regards to hazard perception, hence why I suggested 10%. I always look for ways I can avoid collisions, and so far it has done me well.
I've had 1 collision since I started driving in 2013, and I was stationary in a car park when someone reversed into me.
If I assign that one 10% to myself, you'll surely all take the piss, but it's true, I do. Why? Because I didn't hit the horn, which might have made them look in the mirror and see me stopped.
For the cammer here, maybe it's 1%, the number isn't really important, my point was that the cammer wasn't entirely blameless, unless everyone is suggesting that there is absolutely nothing that the cammer could physically have done to avoid the collision?
For instance, it looks like he may have even had the cruise control on, and it certainly doesn't look like he braked, even after the collision. Which would make a little more sense if he did have the cruise on.
But it's all speculation, of course. I just can't believe I got jumped on for suggesting that there might have been something he could have done to avoid it. I would absolutely agree that it's the other drivers fault, and I assume the insurance companies did too.
Of course, I'm willing to accept I may be wrong by the way, so you can all calm down.
Yes he COULD have avoided it. By walking the journey instead!I've had 1 collision since I started driving in 2013, and I was stationary in a car park when someone reversed into me.
If I assign that one 10% to myself, you'll surely all take the piss, but it's true, I do. Why? Because I didn't hit the horn, which might have made them look in the mirror and see me stopped.
For the cammer here, maybe it's 1%, the number isn't really important, my point was that the cammer wasn't entirely blameless, unless everyone is suggesting that there is absolutely nothing that the cammer could physically have done to avoid the collision?
For instance, it looks like he may have even had the cruise control on, and it certainly doesn't look like he braked, even after the collision. Which would make a little more sense if he did have the cruise on.
But it's all speculation, of course. I just can't believe I got jumped on for suggesting that there might have been something he could have done to avoid it. I would absolutely agree that it's the other drivers fault, and I assume the insurance companies did too.
Of course, I'm willing to accept I may be wrong by the way, so you can all calm down.
carlove said:
I’ll risk it all and agree with you. He wasn’t at fault at all, but looking at it I think it was avoidable.
This screenshot here (would have been in his peripherals a moment earlier) id like to think the Polo would have caught my eye and think “they’re not stopping”. To me It didn’t actually look like the cam car braked at all.
[url]|https://thumbsnap.com/eFMoe7Xj[/url
Relooking at the video a few times, even if he had spotted it, I dont think there was enough thinking distance and braking distance to avoid a collision. Maybe lesson severity if he reacted perfectly on first sight. However theres a good chance he saw the car, his mind went "WTF" and by the time he conciously realised she was going too fast to stop, the impact would have happened. This screenshot here (would have been in his peripherals a moment earlier) id like to think the Polo would have caught my eye and think “they’re not stopping”. To me It didn’t actually look like the cam car braked at all.
[url]
|https://thumbsnap.com/eFMoe7Xj[/urlSo on balance I don't think he could have avoided it. All opinion of course!
cobra kid said:
Yes he COULD have avoided it. By walking the journey instead!
Could have been avoided if the other driver had given way or slowed down or possibly she could have stayed at home.Love the old freeze frame lightning McQueen I could have avoided it above. It's a split second between the car being even visible to contact. Good one for a hazard perception test though for sure.
Psycho Warren said:
Relooking at the video a few times, even if he had spotted it, I dont think there was enough thinking distance and braking distance to avoid a collision. Maybe lesson severity if he reacted perfectly on first sight. However theres a good chance he saw the car, his mind went "WTF" and by the time he conciously realised she was going too fast to stop, the impact would have happened.
So on balance I don't think he could have avoided it. All opinion of course!
I was thinking about whether the collision was completely avoidable. Would still be very close if he did an emergency stop. I think you’re right it would have still happened, but maybe a more minor bump. So on balance I don't think he could have avoided it. All opinion of course!
However my post was hindsight and “shoulda woulda coulda”. I still don’t think any blame can be given to the cam car, his driving was pretty spot on, it’s just his reactions I’m not convinced by. Your comment about him thinking WTF is probably what happened.
Smiljan said:
cobra kid said:
Yes he COULD have avoided it. By walking the journey instead!
Could have been avoided if the other driver had given way or slowed down or possibly she could have stayed at home.Love the old freeze frame lightning McQueen I could have avoided it above. It's a split second between the car being even visible to contact. Good one for a hazard perception test though for sure.
Psycho Warren said:
carlove said:
I’ll risk it all and agree with you. He wasn’t at fault at all, but looking at it I think it was avoidable.
This screenshot here (would have been in his peripherals a moment earlier) id like to think the Polo would have caught my eye and think “they’re not stopping”. To me It didn’t actually look like the cam car braked at all.
[url]|https://thumbsnap.com/eFMoe7Xj[/url
Relooking at the video a few times, even if he had spotted it, I dont think there was enough thinking distance and braking distance to avoid a collision. Maybe lesson severity if he reacted perfectly on first sight. However theres a good chance he saw the car, his mind went "WTF" and by the time he conciously realised she was going too fast to stop, the impact would have happened. This screenshot here (would have been in his peripherals a moment earlier) id like to think the Polo would have caught my eye and think “they’re not stopping”. To me It didn’t actually look like the cam car braked at all.
[url]
|https://thumbsnap.com/eFMoe7Xj[/urlSo on balance I don't think he could have avoided it. All opinion of course!
He didn't stand a chance. If he had been half a second earlier she would have t-boned him, half a second later and he may have been able to react and brake enough for her to have cleared across the front of him.
OllieJolly said:
For the cammer here, maybe it's 1%, the number isn't really important, my point was that the cammer wasn't entirely blameless, unless everyone is suggesting that there is absolutely nothing that the cammer could physically have done to avoid the collision?
Dashnine said:
Psycho Warren said:
carlove said:
I’ll risk it all and agree with you. He wasn’t at fault at all, but looking at it I think it was avoidable.
This screenshot here (would have been in his peripherals a moment earlier) id like to think the Polo would have caught my eye and think “they’re not stopping”. To me It didn’t actually look like the cam car braked at all.
[url]|https://thumbsnap.com/eFMoe7Xj[/url
Relooking at the video a few times, even if he had spotted it, I dont think there was enough thinking distance and braking distance to avoid a collision. Maybe lesson severity if he reacted perfectly on first sight. However theres a good chance he saw the car, his mind went "WTF" and by the time he conciously realised she was going too fast to stop, the impact would have happened. This screenshot here (would have been in his peripherals a moment earlier) id like to think the Polo would have caught my eye and think “they’re not stopping”. To me It didn’t actually look like the cam car braked at all.
[url]
|https://thumbsnap.com/eFMoe7Xj[/urlSo on balance I don't think he could have avoided it. All opinion of course!
He didn't stand a chance. If he had been half a second earlier she would have t-boned him, half a second later and he may have been able to react and brake enough for her to have cleared across the front of him.
Plus the fact that the camera angle makes things look further away than they actually are, this is a case of it being 100% the fault of the other party.
Psycho Warren said:
Relooking at the video a few times, even if he had spotted it, I dont think there was enough thinking distance and braking distance to avoid a collision. Maybe lesson severity if he reacted perfectly on first sight. However theres a good chance he saw the car, his mind went "WTF" and by the time he conciously realised she was going too fast to stop, the impact would have happened.
So on balance I don't think he could have avoided it. All opinion of course!
Even on the camera there is 2 seconds between the car coming into view and the accident. The camera doesn't cover all the view through the windscreen or the side window so there an opportunity to see it earlier. So on balance I don't think he could have avoided it. All opinion of course!
A decent car can stop from 20mph in less than a second and a pretty good one in less than 3/4 of second.
Current expert witness evidence looks like this.
Reaction time depends on expectation.
In an "Expected" state.
"The driver is alert and aware of the good possibility that braking will be necessary. This is the absolute best reaction time possible. The best estimate is 0.7 second. Of this, 0.5 is perception and 0.2 is movement, the time required to release the accelerator and to depress the brake pedal."
On an urban road, approaching a junction, parked cars both side. I would hope to be alert and aware of the good possibility that braking will be necessary.
Even "Unexpected" is 1.25 seconds so marginal but possible.
It's only "Surprise" for side incursions that gets it up to 1.5 seconds. which looks like it happened here.
Still not the same as fault or blame in the traditional sense of the word but, as I said I would be disappointed not to have done better, of course none of us ever have any way of knowing one way or the other.
As an aside, I've seen the crossing vehicle auto braking demonstrations, that probably would have stopped in exactly the same situation as this. as they can instantly tell the crossing vehicle is travelling too fast to stop and they don't have a reaction time measured in tenths.
Edited by Graveworm on Friday 5th March 16:41
Psycho Warren said:
I wasnt on a motorway and if i was I would have used the SOS phone or mobile to dial 999 as its quicker than grid lock and more appropriate. My "hospital run" was only a few miles from A+E at 5 am in the morning on dead mix of moderately populated town and empty country roads.
So in that case YOU got to decide it was an emergency that warranted speeding (and god knows what else as you were threatened with DD), but nobody else gets to decide what is and isn't an emergency necessitating use of the hard shoulder?Got it.
Graveworm said:
Even on the camera there is 2 seconds between the car coming into view and the accident. The camera doesn't cover all the view through the windscreen or the side window so there an opportunity to see it earlier.
A decent car can stop from 20mph in less than a second and a pretty good one in less than 3/4 of second.
Current expert witness evidence looks like this.
Reaction time depends on expectation.
In an "Expected" state.
"The driver is alert and aware of the good possibility that braking will be necessary. This is the absolute best reaction time possible. The best estimate is 0.7 second. Of this, 0.5 is perception and 0.2 is movement, the time required to release the accelerator and to depress the brake pedal."
On an urban road, approaching a junction, parked cars both side. I would hope to be alert and aware of the good possibility that braking will be necessary.
Even unexpected is 1.25 seconds so marginal but possible.
It's only "Surprise" for side incursions that gets it up to 1.5 seconds. which looks like it happened here.
Still not the same as fault or blame in the traditional sense of the word but, as I said I would be disappointed not to have done better, of course none of us ever have any way of knowing one way or the other.
As an aside, I've seen the crossing vehicle auto braking demonstrations, that probably would have stopped in exactly the same situation as this. as they can instantly tell the crossing vehicle is travelling too fast to stop and they don't have a reaction time measured in tenths.
The only problem with all of that is it relies on the driver being 100% alert and focussed and their current situation, not just operation of the car itself.A decent car can stop from 20mph in less than a second and a pretty good one in less than 3/4 of second.
Current expert witness evidence looks like this.
Reaction time depends on expectation.
In an "Expected" state.
"The driver is alert and aware of the good possibility that braking will be necessary. This is the absolute best reaction time possible. The best estimate is 0.7 second. Of this, 0.5 is perception and 0.2 is movement, the time required to release the accelerator and to depress the brake pedal."
On an urban road, approaching a junction, parked cars both side. I would hope to be alert and aware of the good possibility that braking will be necessary.
Even unexpected is 1.25 seconds so marginal but possible.
It's only "Surprise" for side incursions that gets it up to 1.5 seconds. which looks like it happened here.
Still not the same as fault or blame in the traditional sense of the word but, as I said I would be disappointed not to have done better, of course none of us ever have any way of knowing one way or the other.
As an aside, I've seen the crossing vehicle auto braking demonstrations, that probably would have stopped in exactly the same situation as this. as they can instantly tell the crossing vehicle is travelling too fast to stop and they don't have a reaction time measured in tenths.
Nobody is 100% focussed on everything they should be whilst driving 100% of the time. NOBODY.
As is the case with a lot of these clips, it's all too easy to sit back and say "I saw that coming a mile off" when in reality the outcome would probably have been no different if it had been anyone else in the car.
dibbers006 said:
I think NotSoJolly-Ollie could probably find fault with a free lunch 
Uh, why do we have to make this personal?That goes for the rest of you too, by the way.
This place can be nasty sometimes.
I must be wrong due to the reaction, which I accept, despite the hostility from some of you.
I agree that the wide-angle lens and the A-pillar would have changed the view of this from the drivers perspective, and honestly I probably didn't take that into account.
I'll leave it at that, I don't want to continue discussing this with some of the responses I've had, it's not worth it.
Centurion07 said:
So in that case YOU got to decide it was an emergency that warranted speeding (and god knows what else as you were threatened with DD), but nobody else gets to decide what is and isn't an emergency necessitating use of the hard shoulder?
Got it.
Difference is, i wasnt driving down a hard shoulder. Had i been on a motorway in grid lock, the only reasonable choice would have been to call an ambulance. Got it.
And despite all that and back to the original point about using the hard shoulder, 99.99% of the people who do it are just entitled people trying to get past the que. The "emergency" situation you seem to like highlighting is going to be so rare. Also if you were in a real emergency, you would unlikely be driving down the hard shoulder slowly and just sitting there like a
when you are blocked, You would be getting out and shouting at me (or someone else blocking) that you had a medical emergency etc and needed to get past. Being a reasonable person, I would likely let you go unless it was obvious you were full of st. Psycho Warren said:
Centurion07 said:
So in that case YOU got to decide it was an emergency that warranted speeding (and god knows what else as you were threatened with DD), but nobody else gets to decide what is and isn't an emergency necessitating use of the hard shoulder?
Got it.
Difference is, i wasnt driving down a hard shoulder. Had i been on a motorway in grid lock, the only reasonable choice would have been to call an ambulance. Got it.
And despite all that and back to the original point about using the hard shoulder, 99.99% of the people who do it are just entitled people trying to get past the que. The "emergency" situation you seem to like highlighting is going to be so rare. Also if you were in a real emergency, you would unlikely be driving down the hard shoulder slowly and just sitting there like a
when you are blocked, You would be getting out and shouting at me (or someone else blocking) that you had a medical emergency etc and needed to get past. Being a reasonable person, I would likely let you go unless it was obvious you were full of st. You broke the law when it suited YOU and yet now you're whining that other people also break the law and that YOU get to stop them despite not having a clue whether it's justified or not.
I'm pretty sure most people I see zipping down the hard shoulder on those rare occasions aren't all experiencing some sort of emergency but I take a breath and think to myself "do I reeeeeally want to be that monumental prick that blocks that one person that IS having an emergency"? You know, like the emergency YOU YOURSELF felt warranted breaking the law?
Not everyone has the balls to get out and have a word with the cockend that's just blocked them, emergency or not.
Hypocrite much?
Psycho Warren said:
Centurion07 said:
So in that case YOU got to decide it was an emergency that warranted speeding (and god knows what else as you were threatened with DD), but nobody else gets to decide what is and isn't an emergency necessitating use of the hard shoulder?
Got it.
Difference is, i wasnt driving down a hard shoulder. Had i been on a motorway in grid lock, the only reasonable choice would have been to call an ambulance. Got it.
And despite all that and back to the original point about using the hard shoulder, 99.99% of the people who do it are just entitled people trying to get past the que. The "emergency" situation you seem to like highlighting is going to be so rare. Also if you were in a real emergency, you would unlikely be driving down the hard shoulder slowly and just sitting there like a
when you are blocked, You would be getting out and shouting at me (or someone else blocking) that you had a medical emergency etc and needed to get past. Being a reasonable person, I would likely let you go unless it was obvious you were full of st. 1. Its not up to you to police the hard shoulder, it makes you pretty much the same as the bellends who block a land 800 yards before a merge in, plus if you pull onto the hard shoulder to stop people then you too are guilty of exactly the same offence
2. Its queue - not cue
Centurion07 said:
The only problem with all of that is it relies on the driver being 100% alert and focussed and their current situation, not just operation of the car itself.
Nobody is 100% focussed on everything they should be whilst driving 100% of the time. NOBODY.
As is the case with a lot of these clips, it's all too easy to sit back and say "I saw that coming a mile off" when in reality the outcome would probably have been no different if it had been anyone else in the car.
I completely agree, but if my lack of concentration meant that I had an accident that I otherwise could avoid then it wouldn't comfort me fault or not. I can still get hurt in an accident that is someone else's fault. Attention should ebb and flow to prevent fatigue, but the driver should control that based on the potential hazards. I have been lucky and have never had an accident, but I have had near misses. They always annoy me and I don't think in any of them I can honestly say, there wasn't more I could have done.Nobody is 100% focussed on everything they should be whilst driving 100% of the time. NOBODY.
As is the case with a lot of these clips, it's all too easy to sit back and say "I saw that coming a mile off" when in reality the outcome would probably have been no different if it had been anyone else in the car.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff