Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.
- Thread starter teuchter
- Start date
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Well neither would be in a car, so neither would be at fault on the grounds of driving a car. Correct.If however one of those vehicles had been an Amazon van on its way to deliver teuchter’s latest online purchases, and the other a supermarket small truck returning after having dropped off his grocery shopping instead of privately owned cars, neither driver would be at fault
If the delivery vans are delivering to people less fortunate than me, who can't easily walk to the supermarket, then they are a good thing. Not to an dogmatic idealogue like you perhaps, but to a reasonable person like me, it's all fine. As long as they are not speeding.
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
I do agree he was travelling a bit too fast even if legally, from a cautious point view. Not at fault, but not sensibly enough for me.
This incidentally is a good example of plenty of good drivers being actually able to judge a safe speed without needing local authority legislation to guide them. Plenty of times over the years on these boards, some people have been quick to label anyone who might have questioned the wisdom of a local low speed limit as ‘arrogant drivers’, ‘selfish’, or ‘pretending to know better than the experts’.
In fact a great many drivers have long known the 30 mph limit that was commonplace across cities for the last hundred years was too fast for certain narrower residential streets. You could also add plenty of country lanes with a 50 mph limit, which is even more bonkers.
28mph on plenty of smaller streets with a 30 mph limit is legal but wrong and unsafe. Equally, a few miles over the limit on certain roads in certain conditions might be illegal but perfectly safe, or at least far safer than doing 29 mph on certain residential roads with a 30 limit. I would actually be concerned about the driving proficiency of anyone who thinks otherwise.
This incidentally is a good example of plenty of good drivers being actually able to judge a safe speed without needing local authority legislation to guide them. Plenty of times over the years on these boards, some people have been quick to label anyone who might have questioned the wisdom of a local low speed limit as ‘arrogant drivers’, ‘selfish’, or ‘pretending to know better than the experts’.
In fact a great many drivers have long known the 30 mph limit that was commonplace across cities for the last hundred years was too fast for certain narrower residential streets. You could also add plenty of country lanes with a 50 mph limit, which is even more bonkers.
28mph on plenty of smaller streets with a 30 mph limit is legal but wrong and unsafe. Equally, a few miles over the limit on certain roads in certain conditions might be illegal but perfectly safe, or at least far safer than doing 29 mph on certain residential roads with a 30 limit. I would actually be concerned about the driving proficiency of anyone who thinks otherwise.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Yes, that's why speed limits need to be reduced to 20 in most urban areas and rural limits should be dropped too.
The video is a good example of two drivers not being able to judge a safe speed. Again, that's why limits need to be reduced.
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
Like you say, most. Not all. I’m glad you finally agree that blanket speed limits over entire areas that don’t take into account the differences between any of the roads in said area, no matter how significantly apart, are not necessarily justifiable.
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
Was thinking, if that had been in the Netherlands there would more likely have been no road markings, and the driver on the right would have had priority. (Napoleonic thing, has been changing in recent years but that was always traditional).
So he would have slowed down at the junction and woman coming from the right would have edged across. If there had been someone on her right they'd have edged across in front of her because they'd have thought "no I'm the one with priority here" and if there'd been someone on their right they'd have in turn edged across because they'd have had priority.
Of course the original he driving would have decided he was the one with priority and so all four would have met in a standstill stalemate in the middle.
First time I've ever thought the Dutch system was actually better.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
They are necessary for as long as the motorist lobby refuses to have speed limiters in vehicles. That would let some 20mph streets go to 30 and some to 10.
As it is, we know it's too challenging for car people to follow multiple limits so we have to accept something general that tries to reduce the number of people they murder.
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
This is not correct.
mauvais
on reddit or something
I know, right. The owner of the parked car typically gets very cross.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
I do have a speed limiter in my vehicle. It’s my right foot.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
The camera car driver is driving in the middle of the road instead of on the left hand side. Not a good idea when you have blind junctions on the right.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Non no no. It’s definitely murder. Honest.not manslaughter - they actually go out and plan to do it?
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
Just look at how wide & clear the road is before the accident, 20mph is perfectly reasonable, even the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents on inappropriate speed, describe it as driving within the speed limit when that is too fast for the conditions at the time, such as in poor weather, poor visibility or high pedestrian activity, none of which applies here.
mauvais
on reddit or something
It's not a properly blind junction and their middle-of-the-road strategy isn't terrible - mitigates the risk of a pedestrian running out, it didn't really contribute to this accident, and you could argue that sticking to the left would present the opposite risk of being hit from the left.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
His positioning is fine but you can feel that’s he’s a couple of mph over what’s appropriate speed there, especially when he’s passing the parked cars earlier. If he was a little slower he’d have been able to avoid the fuckwit. I actually think he should have been able to brake in time to let her pass in front anyway. That’s probably what happens when you listen to James Blunt though.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
There are risks to everything but if the crazy crashing woman had turned left out of the junction it would have been a head-on collision that wouldn't have been a fun insurance claim for the cam car driver.
mauvais
on reddit or something
The bits they did get wrong IMO isn't speed as such, which is why it's always unhelpful to make everything about it. It's:
(a) early on in the video there's a silver Mercedes coupe parked at 90 degrees to the road and there's a high risk that it's reversing out. Perhaps the driver knows it's always parked there but otherwise there's no reaction to or handling of this risk.
(b) there is zero apparent reaction to the accident; no braking or avoiding action. It develops quickly so maybe a bit much to ask but ultimately you've got to be ready to emergency stop for all sorts of things in these environments. Again it's a bit unfair but I do think they could have avoided hitting the parked car if they'd been paying more attention.
(a) early on in the video there's a silver Mercedes coupe parked at 90 degrees to the road and there's a high risk that it's reversing out. Perhaps the driver knows it's always parked there but otherwise there's no reaction to or handling of this risk.
(b) there is zero apparent reaction to the accident; no braking or avoiding action. It develops quickly so maybe a bit much to ask but ultimately you've got to be ready to emergency stop for all sorts of things in these environments. Again it's a bit unfair but I do think they could have avoided hitting the parked car if they'd been paying more attention.
mauvais
on reddit or something
Possibly (not sure that would be a problem actually) but they couldn't have done that at full speed so it's a different threat.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
The cam driver is clearly driving in the middle of the road so they can straddle all the speed bumps. They're doing it since the start of the video.
The idea that they're doing it to mitigate the risks of pedestrians running out is silly, because they remain in the middle of the road early on even when there are cars parked on the right.
Basically they're gldiing along in their own little world thinking that they are a competent and calm driver because they're not speeding, whereas if they had been speeding they may well have been paying more attention.
The idea that they're doing it to mitigate the risks of pedestrians running out is silly, because they remain in the middle of the road early on even when there are cars parked on the right.
Basically they're gldiing along in their own little world thinking that they are a competent and calm driver because they're not speeding, whereas if they had been speeding they may well have been paying more attention.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
This. He hits her at the same speed he’s been driving at all the way along the road, despite having a couple of seconds from when the black car first comes into view.
mauvais
on reddit or something
I don't mean that the driver in question is doing it to avoid risk, I mean that if you did drive down there trying to position yourself appropriately it might not look all that much different, so it's not a problem as such.
I do agree that they're gliding along which is fundamental to their part in the accident, and I also agree that there is a "I'm doing the speed limit therefore I'm a safe driver" attitude born out of our social focus on speed alone. I really don't think them speeding would have helped though.
To avoid a sideswipe on a road with side roads, one would need to treat each junction as a give way, at least to slow down enough to do a visual check on the side roads. For full safety, you need to assume the contravening drivers have not seen their stop signs, and will be driving at a “normal speed”, e.g. 20mph, straight across.
Do you do that? How fast can you do it, safely?
mauvais
on reddit or something
This is a bit absolute. Some accidents you can't avoid entirely through anything other than unreasonable caution but we know that the driver didn't brake hard, the front of the car would have dipped if they had. They have about a second to do something and they don't. From the moment the car becomes visible to the point they crash into the white parked car they're just a passenger.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
It comes to something when I’m defending a car driver, but the camera car did nothing wrong here.
Now, there’s a good argument that the residential streets concerned could be designed better (see the Dutch for examples etc) and in doing so would have prevented this accident, but as things were the driver was doing 20mph, on a relatively wide road on which they had priority over the side roads. Driving as they were in a central position is fine, less chance of an opening door or someone stepping out becoming a problem.
The fault lies 100% with the idiot screaming into her phone.
Now, there’s a good argument that the residential streets concerned could be designed better (see the Dutch for examples etc) and in doing so would have prevented this accident, but as things were the driver was doing 20mph, on a relatively wide road on which they had priority over the side roads. Driving as they were in a central position is fine, less chance of an opening door or someone stepping out becoming a problem.
The fault lies 100% with the idiot screaming into her phone.
Athos
Well-Known Member
I don't think the camera car driver was at fault for the accident. But, if they'd been a better driver i.e. had they been driving slower, anticipating the hazard, and paying sufficient attention to enable them to react quicker, they might have avoided the incident. (The positioning was fine, though, being honest, it was to minimise speed bumps rather than for safety.)
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
I think so, pretty much on built up roads like that. That particular hazard (having right of way through what is effectively a crossroad) should always be anticipated and slowed for. I definitely don’t think that would have happened if I’d been driving the camera car. Not like that anyway. I might have taken off her back bumper. Unless perhaps I’d been listening to James Blunt all morning.
Last edited:
