Aventador Crash - Moment of Impact

Voodoomelon wrote: »

Some gold in the YouTube comments:

"I dont know why you people are defending the aventador he was driving too fast should of slowed down he tried to squeeze through both cars what an idiot lucky no one was killed and racing a maserati on a public road is just dumb".

Where do they get it :rolleyes:

I see the main problem with people's opinions is fact that things on video can be very deceiving.
I experienced it myself once, after posting a video here, where behind a blind bend I encountered oncoming car overtaking a tractor forcing me to break heavily, and another car behind me, which didn't manage to break on time, and passed me on the left on the grass.

I knew exactly how it looked in reality (as I was there), but some opinions people had after watching the video were completely out of the blue. Facts they saw were not real.
Videos can be very deceiving comparing to seeing something live.

The indignity of it being pulled on a recovery lorry with lesser cars on board. If he was driving a RR a covered recovery lorry would have to be sent to collect it.

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

challengemaster wrote: »

Either get your ears checked, or listen to the following.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2z8eElVdDE

It's actually an ideal video. In london, identical car, you can hear the exhaust note at very low speed, and what actual acceleration sounds like.

Guys you're looking at it all wrong. The real culprit is the double-parked taxi, to the left of the junction. The mazda driver was too busy trying to see around the black cab to notice the lambo.

So there. Once again we can lay the blame on the taxi drivers for everything.

spyderski wrote: »

Why the hell would you want to drive savage cars like that around central London? Have driven a few Ferraris & they're pigs of things to drive in traffic. I can't imagine how bad these hypercars are for city driving. Can't go anywhere without dickheads videoing you on camera phones, can't park anywhere but outside a swanky hotel as they won't go in most underground carparks and won't fit in a normal parking space without 10 minutes of inching your way in while not being able to see anything.

A 330d would be nearly as quick from 0-20, which is all you can bloody do around Mayfair.

Pointless, boring, dangerous willy-waving. Would he not hop on the private jet and drive the Lambo around the hills above Nice or somewhere? Although from the videos, that might prove a major challenge to his driving abilities.

V12 bellow == dropped panties. QED.

vibe666 wrote: »

I was actually in a near miss last summer when driving up the N11 on a busy Sunday afternoon and some clown pulled out of a side road and the car in front came to a complete stop right in front of me.

I stopped in time and pulled to the side of him so that my wife driving behind me didn't hit me and decided to give him an earful for stopping in the middle of a busy main road.

I got universal support from pretty much everyone here saying I did nothing at all wrong and I was well within my rights to give out, but opinions on both YouTube and other sites that the video ended up on were decidedly mixed and a lot of people were of the opinion that the guy who slammed on the anchors to let the other guy all the way out (he was sitting on chevrons in the middle of the road) was perfectly justified in doing so and it was up to me to be able to stop in any situation regardless.

It obviously wasn't under the same circumstances, but my point is that opinions here versus those of the general population can be very different.

So a car in front of you was able to stop in time, due to a hazard appearing and you have a problem with him doing it (and also little faith in your wifes ability to stop in time)? Perhaps you should try the 3 second rule if 2 isnt enough for you? What if it had been a cow wandering into the road, should he have ploughed into it to avoid inconvenience you and your wife?

challengemaster wrote: »

As has been pointed out, airborne doesn't instantly mean speed. It's to do with angle of impact and the subsequent launch-effect caused. It happens in F1, nascar, it's happened in drifting, and it happens in low-speed normal driving collisions.

The Mazda barely moved, the lambo got airborne and crashed into 2 other cars. I reckon I know who was speeding/not paying attention and who was crawling out of a junction.

challengemaster wrote: »

Also you'd be surprised at how little visibility you have in a lambo. More reason to drive slowly? Maybe. But either way it's reduced reaction time.

So he can just ignore his reduced visibility but the mazda driving is a vicious bastard who must be punished?

challengemaster wrote: »

AFAIK it's also in the UK motoring legislation that it's an offence to interfere with another persons driving, lets say, by pulling out in front of them.

Or lets say by taking the front off their car by being distracted/speeding through the city.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

OK, proof that Lambo was speeding besides "Jaysus, that look fierrce fasht!"?

And I am repeating myself a third time, yes, if you come from a sidestreet and you see another car with right of way and pull out in front of him YOU ARE AT FAULT FOR CAUSING AN ACCIDENT.
I'm glad I could clear that up for you, you're welcome...

Ahh, again with the childish voice. Top marks sir.
Again, if you see a car pulling out and drive into it you are causing an accident. If you dont see it *crawling" out, then wtf are you doing behind the wheel?

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Also, you can hear the Lambo very clearly in the video and the Mazda pulled out less than 2 seconds before the Lambo was where he was.
That means Lambo man had less than 2 seconds to react, hit the brake and bring the car to a complete standstill.
ANYONE arguing that we should drive at a speed that if someone pulls out less than 20 meters ahead of us, we should come to a complete standstill and never hit them under any circumstances, is talking nonsense.

No, there was probably always going to be an impact, but if lambo-man was paying attention and driving at an appropriate speed it would have been a fender-bender, not a 4 car pile up.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

But OK, here's my argument:
So, we should drive at all times at such a speed that we can stop in any situation and never hit anyone, ever, we must then also conclude that someone could jump in front of our car in the middle of a motorway, perhaps they ran out from the side, or they waited on top of an overpass and jumped directly in front of a car.
That means we should be able to stop safely with (let's be generous here) 2 meters at ANY time.
So, national speed limit of 5 km/h, here we come! because you never know when the entire crew of the Enterprise will beam down directly in front of your vehicle.
Since this will save hundreds of lives a year, any counter argument is invalid.

Genius argument. Strawman? No one is saying 5km/h but you cant just ignore the situation, its city centre driving and a car crawls out in front of you...you should be able to stop fully or *at least* slow enough to prevent what happened in the video.

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Why are people saying the Lambo is speeding. There is no evidence at all to show he was speeding. The onus is on those to prove he was speeding, not the opposite.

The only conclusion which can be drawn from the available evidence is that the Mazda drive drove out in front of the Lambo and caused the accident.

The evidence is that he couldnt stop and got airborne, crashing into 2 other cars along the way. 60km/h is not appropriate in congested city centre driving.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Also, it's quite evident from the video that the Mazda pulled out almost directly in front of the Lambo, because it pulls out at pretty much 0:00 of the video and even before the time indicator jumps to 0:02 the Lambo hits the Mazda.
We definitely can say the Lambo driver had less than two seconds, I'm almost leaning to 1 second in which to react and come to a complete stop. At 50 km/h, that's just not possible. Even at 20 km/h that's not possible.
So there you have it.
Car pulls out of sidestreet less than 2 seconds before a car with right of way, leaving the other car no chance to stop or avoid the accident. It is not reasonable to expect the other car to drive in a manner to expect complete idiocy and blindness from the Mazda driver, therefore Mazda 100% at fault.
And all that with time-indexed proof from the video.
Counter proof please as to the visibility of the Mazda, speeding of the Lambo and the Lambo not showing reasonable care when driving.
There isn't? Great stuff, I'm off to bed. See you all tomorrow no doubt.

Proof is the fact he got airborne and flew into two other cars before coming to a halt. With brakes like he has, he should have been able to slow enough to have a bump with the crawling mazda...IF he was paying attention and driving at an appropriate speed. 50-60kp/h is not appropriate on that road.

GreeBo wrote: »

The evidence is that he couldnt stop and got airborne, crashing into 2 other cars along the way. 60km/h is not appropriate in congested city centre driving.

:pac: so he was going 60kmh? How did you come to this conclusion? I love how you ignore all evidence stating he wasn't speeding or that we at least have no idea and yet you come in say 60kmh.

I've never seen two people spout so much dribble in any thread before. It's getting ridiculous.

Car crash thread.

GreeBo wrote: »

Again for the umpteenth time, no one is saying its 100% of anyones fault. Both drivers are at fault.

Lots of people saying 100% Mazda.