Prison Diary

[waremark]

Any of us could misjudge a corner entry speed shortly after completing a series of overtakes. Most of us have invested time, money and effort to reduce the likelihood of doing so, but it could happen.

Incidentally, many years ago a friend was sent to prison as a result of a road accident, in which I believed that he was guilty only of a minor error of judgement. In his case aggravating factors were that he was being followed by a friend (accused of racing) and that he was a young man in an expensive very fast car.

What steps do you think we should take to reduce the likelihood of our driving being misinterpreted in an adverse way if anything goes wrong?

I have already mentioned not driving in convoy, and not writing things on the web which can be misinterpreted. In relation to driving style, obviously there is the matter of consideration for people you are overtaking - not pushing in in front, not roaring past if it is not necessary, perhaps putting up a hand in acknowledgement after drawing in. When driving through villages, do so quietly and slowly, bearing in mind that pedestrians in the village may be saying after an accident: 'He came roaring through the village'. Keep your license clean if possible!

What else?

[waremark]

Don't put potentially provocative stickers on your car.

[crr003]

Incidentally, [many years ago] a friend was sent to prison as a result of a road accident, in which I believed that he was guilty only of a minor error of judgement. In his case aggravating factors were that he was being followed by a friend (accused of racing) and that he was a young man in an expensive very fast car.

Wasn't Ronaldo was it?

[nuster100]

Of course, being a Honda and using the v-tec system, you have to rev it hard to get the best from it.

That can't of helped the perception of the people he overtook.


Jay

[Red Herring]

Nobody can guarantee anything, but there are a few simple rules to observe.
including don't do it where you can see somebody else, and don't do it where you can't see if there is somebody else.

Does that mean you would avoid the use of high speed on a single carriageway road if there is oncoming traffic? Does it also mean you would go so far as to avoid the use of high speed unless there is nobody else in sight?

I don't think we should require the road to be completely deserted before we consider the use of high speed.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

No, what it means is that I will drive at a speed that will allow me to stop safely on my side of the road in the distance that I can see to be clear. It also means that if I can see completely across a bend, and I can see that there is nobody coming the other way, and there isn't a group of pedestrians, or a house, or anything other than open scenery either side of the bend, that I might push my vehicle closer to the limits, knowing that if I do misjudge it the only person at risk is me. That's being responsible.

[Red Herring]

Nobody can guarantee anything, but there are a few simple rules to observe.
including don't do it where you can see somebody else, and don't do it where you can't see if there is somebody else.

So by those rules anyone prosecuted for speeding by a Police officer (whatever margin over the limit) had it coming then ?

And anyone who had a collision when after travelling at a speed in excess of the limit has it coming also ?

The point is will all miss things when driving & with very high speeds the more likely that is.

I don't recall bringing speed limits into this debate Von. You're not going to suggest there is some connection between speed limits and what would be a safe speed at which to negotiate a hazard are you?

[TripleS]

Nobody can guarantee anything, but there are a few simple rules to observe.
including don't do it where you can see somebody else, and don't do it where you can't see if there is somebody else.

Does that mean you would avoid the use of high speed on a single carriageway road if there is oncoming traffic? Does it also mean you would go so far as to avoid the use of high speed unless there is nobody else in sight?

I don't think we should require the road to be completely deserted before we consider the use of high speed.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

No, what it means is that I will drive at a speed that will allow me to stop safely on my side of the road in the distance that I can see to be clear. It also means that if I can see completely across a bend, and I can see that there is nobody coming the other way, and there isn't a group of pedestrians, or a house, or anything other than open scenery either side of the bend, that I might push my vehicle closer to the limits, knowing that if I do misjudge it the only person at risk is me. That's being responsible.

Thank you. I agree with what you've now said. Clearly I was taking your previous comments too literally.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Porker]

Be the "grey man". Unobtrusive, discreet and quiet.

P.

[MGF]

The second point I would like to make is that, according to one side of the story, the morocyclist wasn't able to stop safely in the distance he could see to be clear which, in my view, contributed to the accident. Accidents usually occur when two examples of bad driving/riding meet.

With all due respect MGF the motorcyclist may well have been able to stop in the distance he could see to be clear. Unfortunately that space was then taken up by a car coming towards him sideways on his side of the road.

The blog clearly says that the driver looked back and saw the scrape marks from the motorcycle, and the rider, between his skid marks. That tends to suggest he was still going quite quickly sideways at point of impact.

What would you have had the motorcyclist do?

I'm not very good at picturing these scenarios and was referring to lines 4 and 5 of the blog. I may well be wrong.

[7db]

No, what it means is that I will drive at a speed that will allow me to stop safely on my side of the road in the distance that I can see to be clear.

Every time I hear this story I wonder why the bike didn't stop before he hit the blogger's car.

[Red Herring]

Cut and paste from the blog.

"I caused an accident after losing control of my car. It was sideways straddling both sides of a B road, a motorcyclist coming the other way came around a blind bend to be confronted with a car blocking the road. The impact launched him over my (destroyed) car and dumped him on the middle of the road, unconcious. His bike had been thrown some 14 metres back the way it came. My car dangled precariously over the edge of a drop past the verge.After about a minute or so of getting my breath back following the airbag deploying, I realised I'd caused a very serious accident.I'd seen the motorcyclist only for a split second before the impact imploded against the B piller behind my head and shattered every window on the car.

My sunglasses had disappeared from my face, glass from the door window was mingled with blood dripping from my face. There was no way of opening the drivers door, I clambered over the passenger seat and observed one of the worst sights of my life.For about 50 metres down the direction I'd come from, were the tell tale black lines of a skidding car. These were only interrupted by gouge marks on the road surface where car had met bike. In the middle of this lay the biker, motionless, unconscious, a mess. Onlookers, other motorists, were out of their cars but nothing more than background fuzz."

Now I'm no expert, but there are a few on here who will no doubt correct me if necessary. A bike is unlikely to bounce back 14m after hitting a stationery car. The bloggers car has left 50m skidmarks, not good with figures but that's quite a speed then isn't it? The skid marks were interrupted by the impact and the gouge marks from the bike, suggesting the vehicle was still going pretty fast when it hit the bike (remember that's 14m plus whatever distance behind the car the gouge marks started). And this is the version from the guilty party. I'd say that was quite a "mistake" wouldn't you? Shame it wasn't a 38 ton lorry coming the other way instead.

[fungus]

53metres is the overall stopping distance at 50 mph according to the Highway Code, although most modern cars have better brakes and tyres than the cars back in 1961, and will stop in less than this. The skid marks were 50 metres long. What speed was he approaching a blind bend at? I will leave it to those of you who know how to calculate deceleration rates to answer that, but I would hazard a guess that he was shifting.

Nigel ADI
IAM trainee observer

[MGF]

14m corresponds to a post impact speed of a minimum of 22mph (give or take a bit). A quick and dirty bit of momentum plus the other 50m of skid mark gives a speed of around 63 mph.

The author says his wheels continued to rotate through the skid so it wasn't possible to calculate his speed. Would that affect the figure of 63 mph?

[Red Herring]

So, effectively you'd string up TenPenceShort for a speed that wouldn't necessarily attract the attention of a passing TrafPol... might I suggest a career in collision investigation is not for you.

I didn't actually say I'd string him up, I just said I would have preferred it if he'd hit a lorry rather than a motorcyclist,....otherwise that is quite possibly the best piece of career advice I've ever been given........

However I was right about an expert coming along...

Also from the blog:

"The impact launched him over my (destroyed) car and dumped him on the middle of the road, unconcious."

and

"So now the Police had evidence from witnesses and they had evidence from an internet forum which proved I treated that road like a plaything and was predisposed to driving quickly.Add to that the thorough investigation carried out by the Collision Investigation Unit. This concluded that the likely cause of the accident was any or a combination of excessive speed, coarse braking and or steering. In reality it was the former. It couldn't be estimated at any time what speed I was doing, as my wheels had continued to rotate through the entire skid and post impact with the bike. The radious of the corners means it would be very unlikely that I was travelling above the speed limit at the time of my accident. It was what you'd now call innapropriate speed.

As the back of the car began to slide, I'd turned into it and applied as much power as I could get, trying to bring the car back around. Despite the huge, almost 90 degree angle of slide, the car had slowed almost to a halt by the time of the impact. When the impact occured, I was still on the throttle pedal, the front wheels were lifted, spun, gained traction and spat me onto the nearside verge. Believe it or not, the investigation report very briefly mentioned this as evidence I may have been purposely 'power sliding' the car, which was ridiculous in the extreme and didn't feature in court."

When you were working out all those figures did we consider the fact that he had turned into the skid and was trying to power out of it, so I don't suppose the front was doing to much braking. Secondly he says his vehicle was already destroyed when it was across the middle of the road, which tends to suggest he had already hit something else, so further loss of energy......

And finally he says it himself....it was inappropriate speed.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say I'm perfect. I'm just saying I don't have a great deal of sympathy for the author of the blog and I certainly don't think he was hard done by. If someone walked down a road with a rifle and took pot shots through front doors without checking to see if there was anyone behind them we would all call him a psychopath, yet if they fire two tons of metal around a blind bend we call it a mistake?

[vonhosen]

Nobody can guarantee anything, but there are a few simple rules to observe.
including don't do it where you can see somebody else, and don't do it where you can't see if there is somebody else.

So by those rules anyone prosecuted for speeding by a Police officer (whatever margin over the limit) had it coming then ?

And anyone who had a collision when after travelling at a speed in excess of the limit has it coming also ?

The point is will all miss things when driving & with very high speeds the more likely that is.

I don't recall bringing speed limits into this debate Von. You're not going to suggest there is some connection between speed limits and what would be a safe speed at which to negotiate a hazard are you?

You started talking about high speeds.