Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Calculations indicate Speeding

2

Comments

  • #52
    Denny_Crane
    Closed Accounts Posts: 384 ✭✭Denny_Crane


    Webiter wrote: »
    Speed limit in town is usually 50km/hr
    Speed limit on country roads is usually 80km/hr.

    I am guessing driver did not take account of the 50km/hr sign and arrived into town and my position close to the 80km/hr as if he was still on a country road.

    Your working out of that only goes to the fact you should have anticipated it.


  • #53
    Mary63
    Closed Accounts Posts: 801 ✭✭✭Mary63


    You said earlier that he was doing between 65 and 70 km per hour which gave him plenty of time to avoid you if he was far enough back.Are you now saying he was doing 80 km or are you saying he hit you as he exited the town after picking up speed just before the 80 km sign.

    If you pulled out without checking if anyone was coming and he was too close to you he wouldn't have time to stop and thats probably the case whether he was doing 50 km per hour or 65 or 70.

    I see though that you are saying he was coming into the town so I'm very confused.Have you been on a lot to your Insurance company about this.


  • #54
    heroics
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,878 ✭✭✭heroics


    Webiter wrote: »
    I believe the 50km/hr sign was there for a reason. Forgive me if I am incorrect. My opinion is that the 50km/hr stipulation was there for a reason and in all reasonable circumstances it should be complied with. I am not aware that the other driver needed to be speeding in the zone to get away from anything. However, if he had a need to be somewhere in double quick time requiring his excessive speed and if he had thought it appropriate to be traveling at the excessive speed he should have at least had his lights on and maybe also his hazard lights in action. He applied neither.

    But at the end of the day you pulled out in front of them. Do you just assume that whatever the speed limit is that's the speed the car is doing? Can you not judge speed and distance to decide if it is safe to manoeuvre? Why would you need to be aware of the reasons the other car was speeding? Again you pulled out when it wasn't safe to do so. I still don't see the point of you trying to prove the other car was speeding.


  • #55
    Mary63
    Closed Accounts Posts: 801 ✭✭✭Mary63


    I don't either and neither does OPS insurance company.They have accepted he is liable and thats the end of it.


  • #56
    Webiter
    Registered Users Posts: 27 ✭Webiter


    RayCun wrote: »
    :pac::pac::pac::pac:

    Driving over the speed limit is speeding by definition :pac:
    and that would be 30-40% over the limit

    OP, you haven't a hope of proving that the other driver was speeding unless there is physical evidence you can point to - cameras, damage that could only be done at more than 50, skid marks on the road that point to the speed.
    Good points. 30-40% over the limit. If a Garda found somebody traveling 30-40% over the limit I would be of the opinion that they might be summoned to court.

    Evidence includes the distance he pushed my vehicle and his vehicle. Where the vehicles ended up, the weight of the vehicles etc. Possible to calculate the forces required and work backwards to calculate his speed.


  • #57
    RayCun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    Webiter wrote: »
    Evidence includes the distance he pushed my vehicle and his vehicle. Where the vehicles ended up, the weight of the vehicles etc. Possible to calculate the forces required and work backwards to calculate his speed.

    Did you take photographs and measure this distance at the time? Can you prove that those measurements are correct?

    Even if you did and could, the other car will not have hit you at full speed, so you are back into estimating if they were travelling at this speed and started braking at this point they would have been travelling at that speed at the collision. But that depends on when and how hard they started braking, which you can't prove.

    And you still haven't confirmed that you pulled out onto a main road :pac:


  • #58
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • #59
    Mary63
    Closed Accounts Posts: 801 ✭✭✭Mary63


    The Gardai wouldn't see someone driving at 70 km in a 50 km zone as being guilty of dangerous driving, if everyone caught at this speed was summoned the Gardai would get nothing done.

    I saw a nissan micra plough into an old mercedes recently, the front of the micra caved in completely and the mercedes didn't move an inch, it was barely damaged.A heavy car will shunt a light car much further than the other way around so your point proves nothing.

    Im sorry you had this accident but you should learn from it and move on.

    ETA, I wish too you would stop avoiding the question.Did you pull out from a minor road onto a main road, yes or no.


  • #60
    Denny_Crane
    Closed Accounts Posts: 384 ✭✭Denny_Crane


    RayCun wrote: »
    Did you take photographs and measure this distance at the time? Can you prove that those measurements are correct?

    Even if you did and could, the other car will not have hit you at full speed, so you are back into estimating if they were travelling at this speed and started braking at this point they would have been travelling at that speed at the collision. But that depends on when and how hard they started braking, which you can't prove.

    And you still haven't confirmed that you pulled out onto a main road :pac:

    Never admit liability! :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    SkinnyBuddha
    Closed Accounts Posts: 279 ✭✭SkinnyBuddha


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    This +1000!

    Just be glad you didn't cause a fatality or serious injury and move on.


  • #62
    RayCun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    Mary63 wrote: »
    The Gardai wouldn't see someone driving at 70 km in a 50 km zone as being guilty of dangerous driving, if everyone caught at this speed was summoned perhaps people would eventually learn to obey the speed limits

    fyp


  • #63
    kieran.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,175 ✭✭✭kieran.


    What allowance do you have in your calculation the prevailing surface conditions at the accident. Was the surface HRA/SMA or tar and chip ? All have different characteristics. Was there any other factors that could result in a required adjustment to your calcutions oil/grease/mud/moisture etc


  • #64
    nhunter100
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,990 ✭✭✭nhunter100


    Denny_Crane wrote:
    Never admit liability!


    From reading the OP's posts, it would seem his/her insurance company has ceded liability on their behalf. Time to move on.


  • #65
    GT_TDI_150
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,917 ✭✭✭✭GT_TDI_150


    Can i ask... in NI arent all parties involved in an accident automatically breathalised? And if you are over the limit you are considered to be at fault for the accident? Thought i heard that as the case, logic being you should not have been on the road.

    Could the same not apply for speeding / faulty vehicles/ no tax / no nct / no insurance ... you would not have been at the site of an incident if you had obeyed the law.


  • #66
    Webiter
    Registered Users Posts: 27 ✭Webiter


    RayCun wrote: »
    Did you take photographs and measure this distance at the time? Can you prove that those measurements are correct?

    Even if you did and could, the other car will not have hit you at full speed, so you are back into estimating if they were travelling at this speed and started braking at this point they would have been travelling at that speed at the collision. But that depends on when and how hard they started braking, which you can't prove.

    And you still haven't confirmed that you pulled out onto a main road :pac:

    Guards were on scene and they could verify all positions. No sign of braking being employed.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Mary63
    Closed Accounts Posts: 801 ✭✭✭Mary63


    Do you mean your brakes which you didn't pull when you should have stopped at a junction.

    Can you for the love of god explain how this accident happened.Did you emerge from a side road or did you pull across a lane into the other drivers path or did you take a right turn without checking there was no one coming at you.


  • #68
    Webiter
    Registered Users Posts: 27 ✭Webiter


    kieran. wrote: »
    What allowance do you have in your calculation the prevailing surface conditions at the accident. Was the surface HRA/SMA or tar and chip ? All have different characteristics. Was there any other factors that could result in a required adjustment to your calcutions oil/grease/mud/moisture etc

    The only thing that was included for this item in the calculations was a friction coefficient for tar surface.


  • #69
    NinjaTruncs
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭NinjaTruncs


    Webiter wrote: »
    Guards were on scene and they could verify all positions. No sign of braking being employed.

    Without things being measured at the time having all the eye witnesses in the world won't help even if they are guards. Eyeballing now for measurements will be inaccurate.

    4.3kWp South facing PV System. South Dublin



  • #70
    Webiter
    Registered Users Posts: 27 ✭Webiter


    GT_TDI_150 wrote: »
    Can i ask... in NI arent all parties involved in an accident automatically breathalised? And if you are over the limit you are considered to be at fault for the accident? Thought i heard that as the case, logic being you should not have been on the road.

    Could the same not apply for speeding / faulty vehicles/ no tax / no nct / no insurance ... you would not have been at the site of an incident if you had obeyed the law.

    I thought that this applied here too as in NI. Guards were on scene but did not breathalise anybody.


  • #71
    listermint
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,105 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    The Ops evasion to direct questions for explanations to what occurred tends to indicate they are fully aware that their maneuver and lack of anticipation were at fault but is trying to lay some percentage of blame at the other driver.

    The insurance company feels entirely different therefore he has a lost cause and frankly due to the evasion displayed id agree with them


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    nhunter100
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,990 ✭✭✭nhunter100


    listermint wrote:
    The insurance company feels entirely different therefore he has a lost cause and frankly due to the evasion displayed id agree with them


    +1


  • #73
    Webiter
    Registered Users Posts: 27 ✭Webiter


    listermint wrote: »
    The Ops evasion to direct questions for explanations to what occurred tends to indicate they are fully aware that their maneuver and lack of anticipation were at fault but is trying to lay some percentage of blame at the other driver.

    The insurance company feels entirely different therefore he has a lost cause and frankly due to the evasion displayed id agree with them

    Yes you got it, I am as you say "trying to lay some percentage of blame at the other driver". The insurance company have said, had the Garda prosecuted the other driver for speeding that they could have dealt differently with the case. I have shown the other driver to be speeding and am looking at ways of highlighting same. No evasion in that. I do accept that it may not be conventional.


  • #74
    Mary63
    Closed Accounts Posts: 801 ✭✭✭Mary63


    Agree with you listermint and I feel sorry for the insurance company officials.

    We are very far into this thread now and he still won't tell us how he drove into the other persons car, thank god no one was seriously injured, thats what would concern me if my driving was dangerous enough to badly damage two cars.


  • #75
    RayCun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    But you have not actually demonstrated that the other driver was speeding.
    You measured the distance between two points and worked out how long it would take to close that distance at various speeds. You have not proved, and can't prove, how long it took on this occasion. You say it was 15 seconds, but that is only your recollection, which may not be accurate


  • #76
    Ted111
    Closed Accounts Posts: 990 ✭✭✭Ted111


    Denny_Crane wrote: »
    If the OP was pulling out and someone came whomping down on top of them at 150KPH I think the OP would have a point. It goes to foreseeability, it's unforeseeable that someone would be doing that rate of speed.

    Police car/ambulance?

    Basic rules of the road - you have to be ready and able to react to a dog or child running out in front of you. Meteor coming down. Any unexpected event.

    There's a real obsession in this country with drink and speed. The dangerous driving I see every day is people changing lane when the way is not clear. Or people turning on to a road when the way isn't clear.
    There will be people driving at high speed on the roads, legally or otherwise. You have to factor this into your driving and decision making.


  • #77
    listermint
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,105 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Ted111 wrote: »
    Police car/ambulance?

    Basic rules of the road - you have to be ready and able to react to a dog or child running out in front of you. Meteor coming down. Any unexpected event.

    There's a real obsession in this country with drink and speed. The dangerous driving I see every day is people changing lane when the way is not clear. Or people turning on to a road when the way isn't clear.
    There will be people driving at high speed on the roads, legally or otherwise. You have to factor this into your driving and decision making.

    A motorbike I'd say could have been travelling at 50 or under and the OP would still have missed it.

    This is observational, anticipation and frankly bad decision making pulling across the path of another vehicle because someone either wasn't looking or felt they would get out in time which is just plain bad driving. We've enough ads about this especially in relation to motorcycles. Lucky not to kill someone frankly


  • #78
    Mary63
    Closed Accounts Posts: 801 ✭✭✭Mary63


    It must be so terrifying to have someone drive into you and then to think instead of showing remorse this person tries to deflect blame onto you.


  • #79
    Webiter
    Registered Users Posts: 27 ✭Webiter


    RayCun wrote: »
    But you have not actually demonstrated that the other driver was speeding.
    You measured the distance between two points and worked out how long it would take to close that distance at various speeds. You have not proved, and can't prove, how long it took on this occasion. You say it was 15 seconds, but that is only your recollection, which may not be accurate

    Have used a methodology that calculates the speed of the incoming vehicle at the point of inpact. I think these calculation methods are used in court proceedings to prove speed of incoming vehicle.


  • #80
    Webiter
    Registered Users Posts: 27 ✭Webiter


    Ted111 wrote: »
    Police car/ambulance?

    Basic rules of the road - you have to be ready and able to react to a dog or child running out in front of you. Meteor coming down. Any unexpected event.

    There's a real obsession in this country with drink and speed. The dangerous driving I see every day is people changing lane when the way is not clear. Or people turning on to a road when the way isn't clear.
    There will be people driving at high speed on the roads, legally or otherwise. You have to factor this into your driving and decision making.

    I totally agree with you on this. When it happens and you get caught in it you would not want it to be happening again. I think that I was caught out by a speeding driver.


  • #81
    Webiter
    Registered Users Posts: 27 ✭Webiter


    Mary63 wrote: »
    It must be so terrifying to have someone drive into you and then to think instead of showing remorse this person tries to deflect blame onto you.

    I think his speeding should be pointed out to him. I also think that he should be asked to account for it.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • #83
    listermint
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,105 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Webiter wrote: »
    I totally agree with you on this. When it happens and you get caught in it you would not want it to be happening again. I think that I was caught out by a speeding driver.

    When you do your test you are thought to look twice before proceeding.

    You don't get caught if you do that..

    End of.


  • #84
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,781 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Webiter wrote: »
    I think his speeding should be pointed out to him. I also think that he should be asked to account for it.

    Why - surely he knows he was above the speed limit?

    Why does his account of the reason he was breaking the speed limit (allegedly) matter?

    Did you see the car coming down the road or was it out of your field of vision (not that it matters too much)


  • #85
    Webiter
    Registered Users Posts: 27 ✭Webiter


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Might there be a different standard applied in a civil case. On balance of probability.


  • #86
    Mary63
    Closed Accounts Posts: 801 ✭✭✭Mary63


    You are going to lose your no claims bonus now and face hefty premiums next year.Even if the other driver is charged with speeding and he won't be this isn't going to change things for you.

    Were you held totally liable for the accident.

    ETA, the other driver has probably denied he was driving able the speed limit and you have no real evidence.You still want the Gardai to charge him with speeding because your word is more important than his.

    Can people be charge with wasting Garda time.


  • #87
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • #88
    Denny_Crane
    Closed Accounts Posts: 384 ✭✭Denny_Crane


    Webiter wrote: »
    Might there be a different standard applied in a civil case. On balance of probability.

    Yes, but what theory would you proceed on. It's your negligence you're simply looking for contributory negligence to be applied. That's a defence, and a partial one at that, not a course of action.

    Open to correction as always.


  • #89
    stimpson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,822 ✭✭✭stimpson


    Webiter wrote: »
    Have used a methodology that calculates the speed of the incoming vehicle at the point of inpact. I think these calculation methods are used in court proceedings to prove speed of incoming vehicle.

    What methodology have you used? I see you mention the coefficient of friction for the road surface, but the coefficient of friction will be a function of both materials, both road surface and tyre. Expensive tyres will have more grip than cheap Chinese ones. If you haven't taken this into account I'd say your numbers won't stand up to scrutiny.


  • #90
    nhunter100
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,990 ✭✭✭nhunter100


    Webiter wrote:
    I totally agree with you on this. When it happens and you get caught in it you would not want it to be happening again. I think that I was caught out by a speeding driver.


    You were caught out by pulling out into the path of an oncoming vehicle and failing to make progress quickly enough. You screwed up, now have the good grace to accept the consequence of your actions and learn from it.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Webiter
    Registered Users Posts: 27 ✭Webiter


    stimpson wrote: »
    What methodology have you used? I see you mention the coefficient of friction for the road surface, but the coefficient of friction will be a function of both materials, both road surface and tyre. Expensive tyres will have more grip than cheap Chinese ones. If you haven't taken this into account I'd say your numbers won't stand up to scrutiny.

    Even taken different coefficient figures into account to reflect different friction levels he is still failing the speed test relative to the 50km/hr zone.


  • #92
    stimpson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,822 ✭✭✭stimpson


    Webiter wrote: »
    Even taken different coefficient figures into account to reflect different friction levels he is still failing the speed test relative to the 50km/hr zone.

    What formula are you using?


  • #93
    Senna
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,800 ✭✭✭Senna


    What percentage of blame are you wishing to apply to the other driver?


  • #94
    Webiter
    Registered Users Posts: 27 ✭Webiter


    stimpson wrote: »
    What formula are you using?

    Formulas as demonstrated at at http://www.tarorigin.com/aangles/Inline/dkemble.html I converted for metric application.


  • #95
    Webiter
    Registered Users Posts: 27 ✭Webiter


    Senna wrote: »
    What percentage of blame are you wishing to apply to the other driver?

    On account of his speeding in the 50km/hr zone 50%


  • #96
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    Webiter wrote: »
    On account of his speeding in the 50km/hr zone 50%

    2 days on and still no details of how the accident actually occurred


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Webiter
    Registered Users Posts: 27 ✭Webiter


    Mary63 wrote: »

    Can people be charge with wasting Garda time.

    I would not waste Garda time.


  • #98
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    Webiter wrote: »
    I would not waste Garda time.

    You're wasting our time by refusing to give details of the accident you caused


  • #99
    Webiter
    Registered Users Posts: 27 ✭Webiter


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    2 days on and still no details of how the accident actually occurred

    The question is about speeding. I think that I presented sufficient detail to facilitate the speeding question.


  • #100
    Senna
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,800 ✭✭✭Senna


    Webiter wrote: »
    On account of his speeding in the 50km/hr zone 50%

    Not a chance, you pulled out infront of him, you admitted your maneuver was slow also.
    He was doing 65-70kph, over the limit yes, but that does not mean he was a danger to over road users, you were the danger.


  • #101
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    Webiter wrote: »
    The question is about speeding. I think that I presented sufficient detail to facilitate the speeding question.

    You haven't. The details of the accident are critical to everyone's understanding of why the speeding is a mitigating factor.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement