nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Dash cam saves your ass (no Roundabout stuff please :)

Mycroft H

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRC7RO2tOJQ

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Alkers

OSI wrote: »

The final consequence was the bikers fault. Would have been survivable at a lower speed. The actual accident is the drivers fault.

It wouldn't have been too survivable had the biker been doing the limit (60mph). Crash helmets are designed for much lower speeds and not for dead-on impacts with objects at right angles to the rider.

Thoie

gutteruu wrote: »

That exit only has 400 metres notice from sign to exit and the mondeo blocking him took 300 of them to pull in. Could have been cars behind the poster so van had no choice. Not standing up for him, but I would have let him in. If for no other reason than your in his blind spot.

There are few places in Ireland where missing your exit is a disaster. I've missed exits in the past (overtaking a lorry, lorry blocking signs, see the exit too late) - I just keep going to the next exit and turn back rather than fling myself across in front of someone. There are one or two odd places in the country where you can exit a motorway and not rejoin it in the other direction, but mostly you can.

Other people seem to have this idea that even if they're in the 3rd lane, it's perfectly OK to (maybe) flick on the indicator and away you go. Sure, if you miss the Red Cow exit, you may get held up in traffic a bit as you go up to the Lucan exit to turn around, but unless you're giving birth, suck it up.

dashcamdanny

OSI wrote: »

The final consequence was the bikers fault. Would have been survivable at a lower speed. The actual accident is the drivers fault.

Even if the biker was doing the limit, he would probably still be dead in fairness.

That accident is 100% the drivers fault. Plain to see. In fact I cant work out how peeps here a laying blame on the rider at all.

The extra speed simply sealed his fate.

Alkers

OSI wrote: »

No, but he would have been further from the car when he spotted it and had more time to brake and slow down. It wasn't his fault that the crash occurred, but he did his survivability odds no favours.

By that logic, if he had been going even faster he would have been past the car prior to the car pulling out.

hullaballoo

That's literally the most horrendous video I've ever watched. The sort of half-strangled gasped "ahhh" just as the car pulls in front of him will stay with me.

Spook_ie

Simona1986 wrote: »

It wouldn't have been too survivable had the biker been doing the limit (60mph). Crash helmets are designed for much lower speeds and not for dead-on impacts with objects at right angles to the rider.

Simona1986 wrote: »

By that logic, if he had been going even faster he would have been past the car prior to the car pulling out.

Going even faster would just have meant that the accident would likely have happened elsewhere.

Speaking at yesterday’s inquest, PC Graham Brooks said both motorists would have been in each other’s available view for seven seconds before impact.

PC Brooks said: “The average speed of the motorcycle was almost 97 miles an hour, well above the 60 mile per hour limit.”

He said the footage showed Mr Holmes had made no obvious acknowledgement of his speed and showed a disregard for his own safety.

He said: “If the Yamaha had been driving at 60 miles per hour the collision could have been avoided.”

However, given the traffic officers report that they should have been visible for 7 seconds to each other that meant a visible distance of 303.5 meters ( 97mph = 43.36 m/s x 7 = 303.5 meters ) at a speed of 60 mph or 26.8 m/s that 303.5 meters would have taken 4.3 seconds longer to cover, that's 4.3 seconds to take evasive action , react or whatever

RustyNut

Spook_ie wrote: »

Going even faster would just have meant that the accident would likely have happened elsewhere.

However, given the traffic officers report that they should have been visible for 7 seconds to each other that meant a visible distance of 303.5 meters ( 97mph = 43.36 m/s x 7 = 303.5 meters ) at a speed of 60 mph or 26.8 m/s that 303.5 meters would have taken 4.3 seconds longer to cover, that's 4.3 seconds to take evasive action , react or whatever

The facts are that the car driver just didnt look and so didnt see the biker. If it was a young lad on a moped buzzing up the same road at 40 mph and the car driver behaved the same then it would have been the young lad that went into the car. The speed of the biker made the outcome worse but it was 100% the car drivers actions that caused the colision as he admitted himself.

punisher5112

I was in a crash today in the car and I really should fit up my camera.

Woman pulled out looking through my car and behind and exactly the same thing did not see me even with dipped lights on.

I ended up in her drivers door and she didn't know what happened.

I am a magnet for these crashes.

Iwannahurl

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Even if the biker was doing the limit, he would probably still be dead in fairness.

That accident is 100% the drivers fault. Plain to see. In fact I cant work out how peeps here a laying blame on the rider at all.

The extra speed simply sealed his fate.

That makes little sense to me, in logic or law.

In an attempt to learn something (other than the blindingly obvious) from this tragic and shocking incident, I've been having a look at the location on Google Maps.

The crash occurred here.

According to the police the motorcyclist was travelling at an "average" of 97 mph (156 km/h) just before the collision.

He was therefore travelling at 43.33 metres per second. The police also claimed that the motorcyclist and driver "would have been in each other’s available view for seven seconds before impact". Apparently this was verified by other motorists behind the crash driver who said they could see the motorcyclist approaching, evidence which seems to have been particularly damning in court.

Seven seconds at 43.33 m/sec equates to a distance of 303 metres, which looks like this on Google Maps.

This location is approximately 300 metres from the point of impact. This is what the view looks like from the crash site.

Now, StreetView is far from clear (at least on my PC) but it looks to me as if there is an incline in that road.

Is there really a clear view for 300 metres? Is it certain that a driver in that spot would see a motorcyclist approaching at 156 km/h from 300 metres away? Have these assumptions been tested with scientific rigour? Could it possibly be the case that motorists behind the crash driver had a better view because the point of collision is in a dip? Is there any room for reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the driver (bearing in mind of course that he pleaded guilty)?

punisher5112

The thing is a lot of people do not actually see as in their brain doesn't register there is an object as they are looking for car's, vans and trucks.

This theory has been put to a test and a lot failed to see any bike at all.

Voodoomelon

That M50 hard shoulder carry on is ridiculous. Bad education and poor enforcement is the problem there. Whilst it does happen the odd time, no one in the UK stops on the hard shoulder for no reason or uses it to filter around traffic.

Over here no one gives a sh1te. Gardaí are as much to blame as the twats that do it.

Iwannahurl

Spook_ie wrote: »

However, given the traffic officers report that they should have been visible for 7 seconds to each other that meant a visible distance of 303.5 meters ( 97mph = 43.36 m/s x 7 = 303.5 meters ) at a speed of 60 mph or 26.8 m/s that 303.5 meters would have taken 4.3 seconds longer to cover, that's 4.3 seconds to take evasive action , react or whatever

I hadn't seen your figures before posting my own.

You are correct: the significance of the motorcyclist's extreme speed of 156 km/h is that it drastically reduced the margin for error and practically guaranteed a fatal outcome in the event of a crash. Higher speed always -- always -- increases both crash risk and crash severity. Travelling on a motorbike at that speed on such a road was sending the risk factors off the scale entirely.

Of course the what-ifs are not much use in this particular instance. One man is dead, and another has to live with the consequences.

Sobanek

Voodoomelon wrote: »

That M50 hard shoulder carry on is ridiculous. Bad education and poor enforcement is the problem there. Whilst it does happen the odd time, no one in the UK stops on the hard shoulder for no reason or uses it to filter around traffic.

Over here no one gives a sh1te. Gardaí are as much to blame as the twats that do it.

HEY, SHUT UP :P

Spook_ie

RustyNut wrote: »

The facts are that the car driver just didnt look and so didnt see the biker. If it was a young lad on a moped buzzing up the same road at 40 mph and the car driver behaved the same then it would have been the young lad that went into the car. The speed of the biker made the outcome worse but it was 100% the car drivers actions that caused the colision as he admitted himself.

Never said it wasn't, what I did say was at the speed limit given the distance the police said they should have been visible at would have equated to an extra few seconds to avoid the car. 4.5 secs in this case could have potentially been a lifetime

12 element

Voodoomelon wrote: »

That M50 hard shoulder carry on is ridiculous. Bad education and poor enforcement is the problem there. Whilst it does happen the odd time, no one in the UK stops on the hard shoulder for no reason or uses it to filter around traffic.

Over here no one gives a sh1te. Gardaí are as much to blame as the twats that do it.

There are plenty of videos on youtube of people in the UK driving on the hard shoulders in similar situations so it's not just an Irish thing.

[Deleted User]

Spook_ie wrote: »

Going even faster would just have meant that the accident would likely have happened elsewhere.

However, given the traffic officers report that they should have been visible for 7 seconds to each other that meant a visible distance of 303.5 meters ( 97mph = 43.36 m/s x 7 = 303.5 meters ) at a speed of 60 mph or 26.8 m/s that 303.5 meters would have taken 4.3 seconds longer to cover, that's 4.3 seconds to take evasive action , react or whatever

4.3 seconds, the car could have cleared the junction in that time, a near miss rather than a direct hit!
From what I could see the car driver was already committed to making the turn but was very slow off the mark as he hadn't seen the bike.

cormie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muLl7jWJpeE

NCPS immobilised by Gardai and an AA vehicle broken down :pac:

huggs2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wnsdc7cTPuU

finnharpsboy

1. Back door open. 2. Foot path mounter 3. Corner cutter

dickwod1

Kramer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q4boGh9hcI

Biker OK as far as I know, minor injuries.

K.Flyer

huggs2 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wnsdc7cTPuU

That was hilarious, totally unexpected

wolfyboy555

My first few clips with the SJ4000 as a dash cam.

Tzardine

So. This happened to me today. A change of trousers was needed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHG-oPPdZl4

bladebrew

^^ brilliant clip there, I often wondered how people crashed into each other when they are all driving the same direction!

Tzardine

bladebrew wrote: »

^^ brilliant clip there, I often wondered how people crashed into each other when they are all driving the same direction!

Tailgating man. We are one of the worst places for it.

n0brain3r

Tzardine wrote: »

So. This happened to me today. A change of trousers was needed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHG-oPPdZl4

Holy **** thank god you're ok!

Thoie

Tzardine wrote: »

So. This happened to me today. A change of trousers was needed.

Was this the one?

https://twitter.com/aaroadwatch/status/508546770906136576

Tzardine

Thoie wrote: »

Was this the one?

https://twitter.com/aaroadwatch/status/508546770906136576

Yup thats the one. Caused some traffic, especially with the match on. All 3 cars were Tipperary folk on way to Croke Park.

pablo128

Tzardine wrote: »

Tailgating man. We are one of the worst places for it.

I only drove back that road from Cork this evening. Leaving Cork there was a tosser tailgating me at 75 mph. After a few miles I'd had enough and cranked it up over 100 mph, but he stayed with me. I slowed down, and so did he. Only when I slowed to 50 mph did he overtake me and p1ss off.