Aventador Crash - Moment of Impact

dantastic · 02-04-2014 03:52PM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Replace the Mazda with a cyclist and you'd have a war on your hands...

...as opposed to...?

GreeBo · 02-04-2014 03:53PM

Bio Mech wrote: »

Lycra or not I would be saying its primarily the fault of the mazda. just like I am now.

Lambo, micra, bicycle, horse it doesn't really matter. If you pull out and its not clear to do so you have liability IMO.

"primarily"
exactly.
But Lambo-man is not blameless.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

And "I pulled out right in front of him because he should have seen me and stopped! He wasn't paying attention! I won't pay for this accident!" is an argument usually trotted out by people who can't drive, don't look out, don't heed the ROTR and are now trying every trick in the book to weasel their way out of yet another claim. It's when you know you don't have a leg to stand on, but are desperately trying every lame excuse to deflect some of the blame away from yourself and onto the other driver.

If I follow your argument logically, every single accident is avoidable, it is never, or very rarely, only one person's fault, it usually takes two to do something stupid.
What happens next? One of the drivers gets blamed, usually based on the ROTR, whoever decides the blame will not spend as long as we have looking over the case, it's a 5 minute process, along the lines of car A had right of way, car B pulled out, car B at fault, next case.
In an ideal world there would be a panel of people looking over each and every accident and scrutinise the actions of all the participants, looking over evidence, checking onboard data and video footage, if available, questioning witnesses and making a series of calculations regarding speed, braking distance, etc...
They would then apportion an exact percentage of blame, i.e. driver A is 26.3% to blame and car B is 73.7% to blame.
Mostly this does not happen.
I'd be interested in two things. What was the real-life outcome of this and can we have a poll for this thread along:
1: Mazda at fault
2: Lambo at fault
3: 50/50
4: Obligatory Atari Jaguar

Im sick saying it now but I'll try one last time.
NOT AVOIDABLE, but not the massacre it turned into. I've said several times an accident was inevitable here, but it didnt have to be a 4 car prile up.

challengemaster wrote: »

That doesn't abstain him from his responsibility of making sure the way is clear before moving. If you can't tell, don't fúckin move!

So using that logic, we would have standstills all over the city? How well do you think that works?
Are you honestly telling us that you wouldnt slowly inch out, allowing others to see you until you have a clear view yourself?

Marty McFly wrote: »

He meant if you replaced the Lamborghini with a cyclist . Since a few seem to be trying there best to make excuses for the Mazda and lay blame on the Lamborghini.

Not excuses, just apportion some blame on them both.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Replace the Mazda with a cyclist and you'd have a war on your hands...

Do that and you dont have an accident as most lycra wearing cyclist would be aware of cars pulling out and would have been able to stop. Unlike the obviously poorly equipped Lambo brakes.

dr.fuzzenstein · 02-04-2014 04:01PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Do that and you dont have an accident as most lycra wearing cyclist would be aware of cars pulling out and would have been able to stop. Unlike the obviously poorly equipped Lambo brakes.

No, the Lycra-clad cyclist would have been riding on the footpath and crossed on a red light, so would have avoided the Lambo that way.

GreeBo · 02-04-2014 04:03PM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

No, the Lycra-clad cyclist would have been riding on the footpath and crossed on a red light, so would have avoided the Lambo that way.

until the lambo hit a pram wheel and got rocketed onto the footpath (purely due to "physics" and in no way related to speed.....) and then milled him

Idbatterim · 02-04-2014 05:11PM

the hilarious thing is, Id say the cost to replace the wing mirror alone would be more than the value of the bm it clipped! Cant see 120k being a write off, certainly not if its just some panel damage...

vibe666 · 02-04-2014 05:21PM

GreeBo wrote: »

But you didnt know why he was stopping, there could have been a cyclist or motorbike on the ground in front of the megane for all you knew; thats why we are supposed to leave ample stopping room.

Unexpected things cause accidents, not expected things.

so you saw a bike in the video did you?

And l'm not sure exactly what your point is since i not only left ample room in front of me to allow me to stop safely when the megane jammed on the brakes, I also had the presence of mind and awareness of the vehicles behind me to move out of the way to give them more room to stop, which (as my wife will attest) prevented not only her from hitting me, but also prevented car behind from hitting her.

GreeBo · 02-04-2014 05:25PM

vibe666 wrote: »

so you saw a bike in the video did you?

And l'm not sure exactly what your point is since i not only left ample room in front of me to allow me to stop safely when the megane jammed on the brakes, I also had the presence of mind and awareness of the vehicles behind me to move out of the way to give them more room to stop, which (as my wife will attest) prevented not only her from hitting me, but also prevented car behind from hitting her.

No I didnt, the point is that people could stop suddenly for any reason, thats why you leave a gap between cars.

If you needed to move to allow your wife enough room to stop then she needs to leave more of a gap in future. I'm sure neither of us wants her to rear end me next time.

dantastic · 02-04-2014 06:28PM

Greebo, just put yourself in the drivers seat of the lambo. Bare with me just for a moment.
You are driving down the road and you see a car poking out from a side street to the right.

You know you have right of way, you know the car coming out should stop.

You keep going, the car is clearly not going to just drive out in front of you(?!)

You see the car slowly creeping on to the road - He must be waiting for you to pass?

Then, just at the last moment the Mazda is actually going for it.

I think the lambo driver saw full well what was happening but he was just sure the Mazda was not going to actually pull out in front of him. In reality the lambo driver had maybe 1-2m of reaction distance.

Just have a think about the above and then come back, what is the appropriate speed you can go at in order to stop within 2m including reaction time? According to this one: http://forensicdynamics.com/stopping-distance-calculator you can only go as fast as 19km/h to be able to stop in 2m.

Boards is absolutely unbelievable in how the most defenseless is defended. It boggles my mind every time. Have to find a fault with everyone involved. Sure he was driving a lamo so he was asking for it, was bound to happen sooner or later.

YbFocus · 02-04-2014 06:31PM

dantastic wrote: »

Greebo, just put yourself in the drivers seat of the lambo. Bare with me just for a moment.
You are driving down the road and you see a car poking out from a side street to the right.

You know you have right of way, you know the car coming out should stop.

You keep going, the car is clearly not going to just drive out in front of you(?!)

You see the car slowly creeping on to the road - He must be waiting for you to pass?

Then, just at the last moment the Mazda is actually going for it.

I think the lambo driver saw full well what was happening but he was just sure the Mazda was not going to actually pull out in front of him. In reality the lambo driver had maybe 1-2m of reaction distance.

Just have a think about the above and then come back, what is the appropriate speed you can go at in order to stop within 2m including reaction time? According to this one: http://forensicdynamics.com/stopping-distance-calculator you can only go as fast as 19km/h to be able to stop in 2m.

Boards is absolutely unbelievable in how the most defenseless is defended. It boggles my mind every time. Have to find a fault with everyone involved. Sure he was driving a lamo so he was asking for it, was bound to happen sooner or later.

You know he's just going to disagree with you regardless.

Dempsey · 02-04-2014 08:11PM

To quote the rules of the road

Vehicles do not have an automatic right of way on the road. The overriding rule is, in all circumstances, proceed with caution.

Both at fault really.

The Aventador was possibly breaking the speed limit but clearly driving without due care and attention, i.e. unable to stop in a reasonable time for something that could potentially be a hazard. He should also be driving with even more care, i.e. slower, because it was a left hand drive on roads with left hand traffic. Imagine if it was a child that inadvertently stepped out between cars or whatever. That Aventador would have mowed them down before he could react properly

Mazda should have rolled out further if he couldnt see far enough down the road before moving off.

I'd say that the Aventador violated more serious traffic laws in the lead up to that accident despite the fault of the accident itself being on the Mazda driver.

cjmcork · 02-04-2014 08:22PM

anyone think it was an April Fools?

Idbatterim · 02-04-2014 09:26PM

I'm gutted the dolly bird in the Lambo wasn't just wearing a thong and heels

The driver needs to work on his selection criteria

or something like this, about 20 seconds in LOL

MuppetCheck · 02-04-2014 10:28PM

My take on it:

Lambo probably was going a tad fast but i wouldn't say excessively so.

He saw the Mazda at the last second. It probably looked to him that either he was waiting for him to pass or he saw him at the last second.

The second the Mazda crossed the central line he was on the brakes - you can hear that much. His reaction was quick. There wasn't enough time between the Mazda crossing the line and the collision for him to stop. Being airborne meant his brakes weren't slowing him so he went on a bit longer.

I think in this instance it's on the Mazda, I can what GreeBo is getting at with his points but I don't think this was avoidable by the Lambo, even if strictly at or slightly below the limit - they were going to collide due to the actions of the Mazda driver.

challengemaster · 02-04-2014 11:27PM

GreeBo wrote: »

So using that logic, we would have standstills all over the city? How well do you think that works?
Are you honestly telling us that you wouldnt slowly inch out, allowing others to see you until you have a clear view yourself?

Got an answer for everything eh?...

That's exactly what I'm saying. I wouldn't just poke the nose of the car out blindly and hope people don't crash into me.

I'd have waited for the bus to move so I had a clear view.

BMJD · 02-04-2014 11:35PM

everyone stfu please thanks bye

Bruthal · 03-04-2014 12:18AM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Mazda pulled out on oncoming car, no amount of arguing will change that fact.

Yea so it is your belief that a car can drive down a main street as fast as they like, free from any blame in an accident such as this?

People with that view will feel no need to proceed with caution at every junction in a city centre where cars are visibly waiting, simply because they believe in complete right of way. I have the right of way, I can drive as fast as I like.

Bruthal · 03-04-2014 12:38AM

dantastic wrote: »

Boards is absolutely unbelievable in how the most defenseless is defended. It boggles my mind every time. Have to find a fault with everyone involved. Sure he was driving a lamo so he was asking for it, was bound to happen sooner or later.

If you speed around city centre streets, it is bound to happen sooner or later.

GreeBo · 03-04-2014 10:45AM

MuppetCheck wrote: »

My take on it:

Lambo probably was going a tad fast but i wouldn't say excessively so.

He saw the Mazda at the last second. It probably looked to him that either he was waiting for him to pass or he saw him at the last second.

The second the Mazda crossed the central line he was on the brakes - you can hear that much. His reaction was quick. There wasn't enough time between the Mazda crossing the line and the collision for him to stop. Being airborne meant his brakes weren't slowing him so he went on a bit longer.

I think in this instance it's on the Mazda, I can what GreeBo is getting at with his points but I don't think this was avoidable by the Lambo, even if strictly at or slightly below the limit - they were going to collide due to the actions of the Mazda driver.

Which is exactly what I have been saying all along. There was always going to be a crash, if lambo-man was paying more attention or driving at a more appropriate speed it wouldnt have been the 4 car pile up that it ended up as.

dantastic wrote: »

Greebo, just put yourself in the drivers seat of the lambo. Bare with me just for a moment.
You are driving down the road and you see a car poking out from a side street to the right.

You know you have right of way, you know the car coming out should stop.

You keep going, the car is clearly not going to just drive out in front of you(?!)

You see the car slowly creeping on to the road - He must be waiting for you to pass?

Then, just at the last moment the Mazda is actually going for it.

I think the lambo driver saw full well what was happening but he was just sure the Mazda was not going to actually pull out in front of him. In reality the lambo driver had maybe 1-2m of reaction distance.

The difference between you and me (and lambo-man) here is that in the above situation I would have started slowing down after your first point. Not continuing on telling myself that I have right of way.

dantastic wrote: »

Just have a think about the above and then come back, what is the appropriate speed you can go at in order to stop within 2m including reaction time? According to this one: http://forensicdynamics.com/stopping-distance-calculator you can only go as fast as 19km/h to be able to stop in 2m.

Boards is absolutely unbelievable in how the most defenseless is defended. It boggles my mind every time. Have to find a fault with everyone involved. Sure he was driving a lamo so he was asking for it, was bound to happen sooner or later.

For the definite last time, (I swear you are doing it deliberately at this stage) I never said he should have been able to STOP, he should have been able to avoid a 4 car, transformers-like airborne attack pile-up.

Bio Mech · 03-04-2014 11:16AM

GreeBo wrote: »

transformers-like airborne attack pile-up.

Oh please. That's a major over exaggeration (which you have been making the entire thread). You are the one talking about being sensible but you cant seem to make your own point without huge hyperbole and a general lack of sense.

Stallingrad · 03-04-2014 11:33AM

We are far beyond caring and this thread has become a silly tit for tat. Time for the lock!

L-M · 03-04-2014 12:26PM

Staislingrad wrote: »

We are far beyond caring and this thread has become a silly tit for tat. Time for the lock!

Your wish is my command.

Aventador Crash - Moment of Impact

Comments