What an ****.

[st13phil]

When I was 17 I had a motorcycle accident which shaped my attitude to driving ever since. It was largely a "wrong place, wrong time" event, but with more experience I would have approached the potential hazard (that turned into a real hazard) differently. No-one was prosecuted as a result of the event.

Six weeks on traction and then six months learning to walk again gave me plenty of time to replay what went right, what went wrong, and what I may have done differently. Ultimately that analysis boiled down to being a bit more circumspect and considering at all times when driving what constitutes a threat, and what mitigating actions I can take to either eliminate it or minimise its consequences if it materialises. That event was almost 40 years ago and was probably the single most important "driving lesson" I ever had.

Most drivers are fortunate in that they are never a participant in a collision, either as a protagonist or a victim, but with that good fortune comes a lack of appreciation of quite how quickly events can unfold with potentially life-changing consequences. Simple acts of defensive driving like lifting off, slowing, and being ready to brake when approaching a junction if there's a threat present even when you have the right of way really can make a huge difference.

 

[Bellow]

Most drivers are fortunate in that they are never a participant in a collision, either as a protagonist or a victim, but with that good fortune comes a lack of appreciation of quite how quickly events can unfold with potentially life-changing consequences.

In nano seconds it goes from 'everything is fine' to....

Simple acts of defensive driving like lifting off, slowing, and being ready to brake when approaching a junction if there's a threat present even when you have the right of way really can make a huge difference.

Driving through a junction where there's traffic I cover the brake with my left foot.
Driving through in a manual, brake uncovered, and the time it will take (0.75s) to transfer my right foot to the brake pedal is unthinkable now.
We should all be doing this. We don't because there is still the ridiculous notion that a manual transmission gives 'more control'.

 

[Deleted member 6183]

In nano seconds it goes from 'everything is fine' to....
.

At 62 metres per second options are even more reduced.

 

[st13phil]

Driving through a junction where there's traffic I cover the brake with my left foot.

One of the benefits of a motorcycle's controls is that you can naturally cover the brakes (both of them) at all times if you wish

One thing that riding motorcycles teaches you (mainly because of the personal pain and suffering involved if it goes wrong ) is to look for clues that other drivers are about to do something unexpected. Things like looking for eye contact with the driver waiting to execute a turn, or looking at the wheels of a stationary vehicle rather than the vehicle itself as its easier to see even the slightest forward motion that way.

 

[Deleted member 65149]

One of the benefits of a motorcycle's controls is that you can naturally cover the brakes (both of them) at all times if you wish One thing that riding motorcycles teaches you (mainly because of the personal pain and suffering involved if it goes wrong ) is to look for clues that other drivers are about to do something unexpected. Things like looking for eye contact with the driver waiting to execute a turn, or looking at the wheels of a stationary vehicle rather than the vehicle itself as its easier to see even the slightest forward motion that way.

Absolutely. As first David Frost and now Keith Lemon says, "The clues are there." Just like looking at the line of trees ahead can give an indication of how sharp the bend may be that you're approaching. It ain't rocket science, but it is good for self preservation.

I too learnt the hard way that it hurts when you make a minor mistake on two wheels. In over 50 years of driving I've been very fortunate never to have been involved in an incident that's resulted in any injury, and indeed only a couple of tiny scrapes that I could attribute solely to me. After the other few incidents, all officially the fault of other drivers, I have contemplated what I might have been able to do in order to prevent it happening. Even, as in most cases, when my car has been hit from behind I've wondered if I could have done anything to avoid it. The car park scrape - should I have parked somewhere else that would have been less vulnerable?

 

[TheFoX]

Two comments.

1) The dash cam recording shows the Signum driver was approaching the junction at a steady 54mph. How accurate that figure is we'll never know. What we also don't know is whether he had reduced his speed from around 60 just before the footage in the knowledge that he was approaching the junction. The dash cam recorded his speed increasing to 57mph for a fraction of a second before the collision. Again we don't know if that was a true indication of the car's speed at that point or, if so, why. My point is, however, that I don't think we could have reasonably expected any more caution from the Signum driver.

2) The Signum driver didn't have unique right of way, he only had priority. The road is for all of us. In this instance it would appear that the Signum driver wasn't exerting any particular claim to right of way. Unfortunately too many drivers do, in preference to giving way. In my opinion, assuming you have right of way at any time is potentially dangerous. I don't want to be saying from my hospital bed, "But I had right of way!"

I cannot say what speed he was doing, or was being recorded, but I can tell that the vehicle was moving at a high speed simply through the feel of the video and how the scenery flows. Being a bit of a Dash Cam animal myself, it is easy to spot acceleration and deceleration from video footage, and if you have pencil and paper, you can even work out the actual speed against known markers, such as lamp posts and white line spacing.

Now I am not saying he should have slowed down, but that slowing down would have given him an advantage when attempting to avoid a collision. He would have probably still collided with the RR, but the impact would have been reduced. As for us expecting caution from the Signum driver, that is a moot point. Only his passengers should expect him to show relevant caution.

Mind you, this is all besides the point. Even if he was doing 80mph in a 60mph, the RR still crossed his path.

As for right of way, if a driver wishes to turn right, he has every right to do so, when the way is clear of oncoming traffic. He doesn't have the right to force oncoming traffic to stop to make way for him. I agree that there is a certain amount of give and take, but we have rules and regulations to ensure that society runs reasonably smoothly. This is why traffic on a round-a-bout moves in a clockwise direction with no contra-flow, or why traffic on three lanes of a motorway all move in the same direction, give or take lane swapping.

The simple fact is that the Signum driver did have priority over the RR because he was going with the flow, not contra-flow (driving in to the traffic stream).

No amount of debate is going to return those two girls the use of their legs, and accidents like this will happen like clockwork. I know youngsters who drive their cars as if they were on a race circuit, even though they are on the public highway. I have seen an old lady killed using a Zebra crossing by a Ford Capri overtaking a slower moving vehicle (presumably to allow the old lady to cross).

Some people have common sense, even if they do occasional speed, while others have no regard whatsoever for other road users, using abuse and threatening tactics to intimidate or even attack.

In all of this, someone suffers, and it is usually a bystander not connected with driving, such as the two young girls.

Finally, does any one think our justice system isn't strong enough? I watch a lot of murder investigation programs and I find a big diversity between what the US hand out as custodial sentences and what the British do. For the same sort of crime, a US court would probably award 90 years with no parole for 60 years, while the same crime would probably get 15 years with the possibility of parole after only a few years have been served.

This guy got just over 4 years, yet there are financial fraudsters who get longer sentences. Maybe he should be banned from driving for life, or at least 10 years.

What do you guys think he should be penalised with?

 

[190]

As of today, I now reduce my speed to 40mph while passing that dangerous junction...

This is so important and would make a big difference to any impact because Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the speed.

I find this practical example of that fact very sobering:

Say you are traveling at 60 mph and see a hazard ahead and are just able to stop the vehicle without hitting it. If instead you were traveling at 65 Mph you are now obviously going to hit it. What would the impact speed be ? Due to the square law the answer is not 5 mph but 25 MPH.

Turning that around, any reduction in speed when approaching a hazard will make for a bigger reduction in the kinetic energy dissipated in any impact. To put some numbers on it a 40 MPH impact has only 44% of the kinetic energy of a 60 MPH impact. To use a more familiar number in a square law relationship: If you halve the speed to 30 MPH the kinetic energy reduces to only 25% of what it would be at 60 MPH.

 

[Bellow]

Yes, but all this slowing down A) doesn't actually achieve the objective ie, completing ones journey and B) causes confusion to following drivers.
Get on with it, be vigilant to the hazards, cover the controls where necessary, and accept that there is inherent risk - or stay at home.

To suggest that the Signum driver was in any way responsible is to blame him for his children's disability. An absolute insult when clearly the maniac in the RR playing out some sort of vigilante fantasy was the sole cause of this tragedy.

 

[brucemillar]

If we all look long enough at anything we will eventually blame the cyclist or Chris Evans.

Blame and fault here both lie solely with the Land Rover Driver. The test being, were he not there? this would not have happened.

 

[markjay]

If we all look long enough at anything we will eventually blame the cyclist or Chris Evans.

Blame and fault here both lie solely with the Land Rover Driver. The test being, were he not there? this would not have happened.

Bruce,

I agree, but... in aviation you always ask if the pilot could have avoided the crash. Not if it his fault... but if there was a reasonable action he could have taken. This is done in the interest of aviation safety.

Sadly road traffic accidents are only investigated in order to establish criminal and civil liability... but lessons are not learnt.

I am clearly not suggesting that another driver in the Signum could it would have avoided or prevented the crash. I really do not know.

My point is that to my mind the question in itself is both legit and important. Even if the answer is 'no, there was nothing any driver could have done'.

 

[brucemillar]

Bruce,

I agree, but... in aviation you always ask if the pilot could have avoided the crash. Not if it his fault... but if there was a reasonable action he could have taken. This is done in the interest of aviation safety.

Sadly road traffic accidents are only investigated in order to establish criminal and civil liability... but lessons are not learnt.

I am clearly not suggesting that another driver in the Signum could it would have avoided or prevented the crash. I really do not know.

My point is that to my mind the question in itself is both legit and important. Even if the answer is 'no, there was nothing any driver could have done'.

Mark

My post was not aimed in any way you. Rather I was pointing out what is the internet norm with these things. There is a site: Idiotdrivers.....who post up nothing but dashcam footage submitted by the general public of what they consider to be "idiot drivers" crashing into each other or other people.

The comments are sometimes humorous, direct, rude etc. In almost every case you will get to the poster being blamed within a few comments.

Those involved in "major accidents" will spend years reliving that moment in an effort to change time. In my case (and I suspect in many others) it is simply the "wrong place at the wrong time". Others will always have a view on what "they would have done". But others were not there, living in your moment, so can only give a general view as opposed to a personal view.

I think when we get close to our mortality (and a big shunt can take us there) we will (as they say) clutch at any straw.

A very dear friend - ex BA senior training pilot - who was also an ex RAF lightning pilot, once said to me "when a twin engine plane loses an engine on take off. It will fairly quickly proceed to the scene of the accident. Years of analysis and a black box will demonstrate how well the pilot few to scene of the accident." His point being - that it happened and we cannot change it - unless we stop the engine failing.

In this instance the same rules apply. Had he slowed for the junction somebody would have complained he caused an accident further back. Had he steered right, he may well have caused a different type of impact.

I believe in Indy racing the theory is that you should aim at the spinning car. The thinking being that it will move before you do and any avoiding action you try to take will cause another crash. In F1 there is a similar principle, when turning in, drivers will often aim at the barrier in the assumption that the car will move through under-steer. Thus explaining why often see several drivers having the same accident.

 

[TheFoX]

This is so important and would make a big difference to any impact because Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the speed.

I find this practical example of that fact very sobering:

Say you are traveling at 60 mph and see a hazard ahead and are just able to stop the vehicle without hitting it. If instead you were traveling at 65 Mph you are now obviously going to hit it. What would the impact speed be ? Due to the square law the answer is not 5 mph but 25 MPH.

Turning that around, any reduction in speed when approaching a hazard will make for a bigger reduction in the kinetic energy dissipated in any impact. To put some numbers on it a 40 MPH impact has only 44% of the kinetic energy of a 60 MPH impact. To use a more familiar number in a square law relationship: If you halve the speed to 30 MPH the kinetic energy reduces to only 25% of what it would be at 60 MPH.

The officer in charge of the incident actually said the same thing, in that my mother and I survived because we were going slower. He was more than adamant that if I had been doing 60mph, at least one of us would have died, and most likely both of us would have died.

Yes, but all this slowing down A) doesn't actually achieve the objective ie, completing ones journey and B) causes confusion to following drivers.
Get on with it, be vigilant to the hazards, cover the controls where necessary, and accept that there is inherent risk - or stay at home.

To suggest that the Signum driver was in any way responsible is to blame him for his children's disability. An absolute insult when clearly the maniac in the RR playing out some sort of vigilante fantasy was the sole cause of this tragedy.

Firstly, no one is blaming the Signum driver, but there are lessons to be learned.

Secondly, a part of defensive driving to trying to interpret what other road users are doing, or are about to do. If we are unsure of the motives of another road user, we should take necessary precautions to compensate for their lack of ability.

On the way to Holbeach today, I noticed that the articulated vehicle coming towards me was ever so slightly over the middle line (by about three foot). Instead of asserting my road presence, I eased off the accelerator, half expecting him to move back in to his lane as he approached me, but also half expecting him to use his vehicle in a bullying tactic. Thankfully, I realised that he wasn't going to pull over, and was able to safely mount the verge, avoiding a collision.

There is one significant point to remember here, and that is when you are driving a company vehicle, whether it be a lorry, tractor or company owned Range Rover, you will most likely not respect it as much as you would if you had paid for it out of your own pocket, and will more than likely take risks which you wouldn't normally take if it was your own personal property. After all, that vehicle is not your pride and joy, but a tool of the trade. It won't be the first time, or the last time, that a company vehicle driver has used their vehicle as a weapon. I see it all the time living in an area predominantly used by LGV.

Sometimes, slowing down is the prudent thing to do.

 

[MarkII]

Notwithstanding the 'what ifs' - one driver caused this accident, as a result of his own arrogance and recklessness - if he hadn't made the choices he did that day an innocent family would be living their lives normally.

People should drive defensively, if only to account for the mixture of muppets we get on our roads but if someone (like this guy) throws the last shred of common sense out of the window what can any of us do?

I suspect like many people on here, I've been driving a long time (somewhere in the region of 2,000,000 miles on road plus more on track) and yet the lunacy of peoples driving and the poor quality of their roadcraft never ceases to amaze me, so I try to take nothing for granted.

It's not just perception, the standard of driving in the UK has been falling for decades and those few who take a pride in their driving standards are massively outweighed by muppets for whom the act of arriving at their destination is more often a result of good fortune, rather than good driving.

 

[markjay]

The 'what ifs' can go on - some would say it's absurd, others that it's sensible.

What if the Signum driver bought a safer car to better protected his family? What if he had a Range Rover? Or an S-Class? The Signum is an old model with 4-Star Euro NCAP rating. And did he have the best child seats on the market? Etc.

What if he drove slower than 60mph (assuming this was his speed)? NSL is an upper limit, not the recommended speed, etc.

Personally I would concentrate on the 'what ifs' given the set of circumstances as we know them to be at the time.

 

[Deleted member 65149]

The 'what ifs' can go on - some would say it's absurd, others that it's sensible. What if the Signum driver bought a safer car to better protected his family? What if he had a Range Rover? Or an S-Class? The Signum is an old model with 4-Star Euro NCAP rating. And did he have the best child seats on the market? Etc. What if he drove slower than 60mph (assuming this was his speed)? NSL is an upper limit, not the recommended speed, etc. Personally I would concentrate on the 'what ifs' given the set of circumstances as we know them to be at the time.

The video shows he was doing 54mph.

 

[TheFoX]

One question that no one seems to have asked is, 'Is the Mercedes driver a member of this forum, and if not why not?'

Actually, what sort of collision detection/prevention systems would a RR have?

 

[Sorry Pete]

I was reminded very early on in my driving career of the words my instructor said often:

"If everyone drove as they did on their driving test, the insurance companies would go bust"

"It takes two to have an accident"

and,

"Be able to stop, on your side of the road, in the distance you can see to be clear."

Three weeks and a wake-up call later that involved a dark country road and a blind bend put paid to any future driving with flair.

The last two years I've dabbled with a motorbike, and I think that alone has improved my driving more than any course could. The forward planning, observation and plain old tingly senses that something's not right are reinforced when you aren't cocooned from the elements.

Bringing it back to this incident, no one knows how they're going to react in this situation. One of the those statistics you have to get your head around is that 40% of people never hit the brakes in a crash. Inattention and the one second thinking time will have a lot to do with this, but speed of approach to hazards is where you mitigate the impact speed. In addition, when the brakes are applied, again, a large percentage of people don't press hard enough to use the full force of the brakes.

Foot through the firewall and look at what you don't want to hit?

 

[Sorry Pete]

The officer in charge of the incident actually said the same thing, in that my mother and I survived because we were going slower. He was more than adamant that if I had been doing 60mph, at least one of us would have died, and most likely both of us would have died.

When it's all going to go to sh1t, every mph of scrubbed off speed counts.

...bullying tactic. Thankfully, I realised that he wasn't going to pull over, and was able to safely mount the verge, avoiding a collision...


Sometimes, slowing down is the prudent thing to do.

"The cemetries are full of people who had right of way." - old advice from my driving instructor.

 

[Bellow]

Foot through the firewall and look at what you don't want to hit?

.....and look to where you want to be.
(Focus on what you are trying to avoid and you will hit it).

 

[MarkII]

The last two years I've dabbled with a motorbike, and I think that alone has improved my driving more than any course could. The forward planning, observation and plain old tingly senses that something's not right are reinforced when you aren't cocooned from the elements.

Agreed - riding a motorbike, or more specifically being taught how to ride a motorbike well often results in a better car driver.

Really some form of advanced road training should be mandatory for all drivers/riders every 5 years and maybe people should be re-tested every 20 years.

Not only do people fall into bad habits, more importantly their ability to respond to an emergency situation is conditioned downwards by lack of exposure - so the first time someone encounters an emergency it's often their last.

Obviously training doesn't guarantee you won't have an accident, or be involved in one where the cause wasn't your fault but it does give you a better chance of avoiding it, or coming out of it in one piece.

Frankly, the idea that we can pass a test at 17 and still be driving without any further evaluation 60+ years later seems crazy.

Unfortunately Nay clearly was crazy (crazed) and shouldn't have been on the road in the first place with the mentality he had but that's a separate issue.