Another astonishing decision: a Ferrari crashed into bike racks in a 20
mph area of Norwich and both car and bike racks were badly damaged. A video and various stills can be seen here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-norfolk-68598455
The initial reaction of the local police was: "no further action would
be taken". I'm astonished by this - I would have thought that there's easily enough evidence for a charge of dangerous driving - after all
anyone on the pavement or near the bike rack would have been badly
injured or perhaps killed.
It does appear that someone has had second thoughts:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8v3ryp9052o
but can anyone think of an explanation for what was said initially?
Another astonishing decision: a Ferrari crashed into bike racks in a 20
mph area of Norwich and both car and bike racks were badly damaged. A video and various stills can be seen here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-norfolk-68598455
The initial reaction of the local police was: "no further action would
be taken". I'm astonished by this - I would have thought that there's easily enough evidence for a charge of dangerous driving - after all
anyone on the pavement or near the bike rack would have been badly
injured or perhaps killed.
It does appear that someone has had second thoughts:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8v3ryp9052o
but can anyone think of an explanation for what was said initially?
On 21/03/2024 14:45, Martin Brown wrote:
On 21/03/2024 12:37, Clive Page wrote:
Another astonishing decision: a Ferrari crashed into bike racks in a
20 mph area of Norwich and both car and bike racks were badly
damaged. A video and various stills can be seen here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-norfolk-68598455
The initial reaction of the local police was: "no further action
would be taken". I'm astonished by this - I would have thought that
there's easily enough evidence for a charge of dangerous driving -
after all anyone on the pavement or near the bike rack would have
been badly injured or perhaps killed.
You think he should be punished for something that didn't happen? I
would support a charge of careless driving, but nothing more.
It does appear that someone has had second thoughts:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8v3ryp9052o
but can anyone think of an explanation for what was said initially?
Police CBA to do the paperwork.
It is a clear example of total loss of control at speed.
From the side road camera view and the time it took him between
appearing and disappearing, I estimate that, at that point, he was doing around 25mph. Above the 20mph limit, but probably not excessively so
even at the point where he lost control. I think that the wet road had a
lot to do with him losing it in the bend.
The road isn't even particularly bendy. All the "too fast" exit points
on our twisty country roads have gaps where someone didn't make it
around the corner.
On the plus side his insurance premium will now be extortionate!
Assuming he bothers to insure it.
On 21/03/2024 12:37, Clive Page wrote:
Another astonishing decision: a Ferrari crashed into bike racks in a
20 mph area of Norwich and both car and bike racks were badly
damaged. A video and various stills can be seen here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-norfolk-68598455
The initial reaction of the local police was: "no further action would
be taken". I'm astonished by this - I would have thought that
there's easily enough evidence for a charge of dangerous driving -
after all anyone on the pavement or near the bike rack would have been
badly injured or perhaps killed.
It does appear that someone has had second thoughts:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8v3ryp9052o
but can anyone think of an explanation for what was said initially?
Police CBA to do the paperwork.
It is a clear example of total loss of control at speed.
The road isn't
even particularly bendy. All the "too fast" exit points on our twisty
country roads have gaps where someone didn't make it around the corner.
On the plus side his insurance premium will now be extortionate!
Another astonishing decision: a Ferrari crashed into bike racks in a 20
mph area of Norwich and both car and bike racks were badly damaged. A video and various stills can be seen here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-norfolk-68598455
The initial reaction of the local police was: "no further action would
be taken". I'm astonished by this - I would have thought that there's easily enough evidence for a charge of dangerous driving - after all
anyone on the pavement or near the bike rack would have been badly
injured or perhaps killed.
It does appear that someone has had second thoughts:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8v3ryp9052o
but can anyone think of an explanation for what was said initially?
On 21/03/2024 12:37, Clive Page wrote:
Another astonishing decision: a Ferrari crashed into bike racks in a
20 mph area of Norwich and both car and bike racks were badly
damaged. A video and various stills can be seen here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-norfolk-68598455
The initial reaction of the local police was: "no further action would
be taken". I'm astonished by this - I would have thought that
there's easily enough evidence for a charge of dangerous driving -
after all anyone on the pavement or near the bike rack would have been
badly injured or perhaps killed.
It does appear that someone has had second thoughts:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8v3ryp9052o
but can anyone think of an explanation for what was said initially?
Police CBA to do the paperwork.
It is a clear example of total loss of control at speed.
The road isn't
even particularly bendy. All the "too fast" exit points on our twisty
country roads have gaps where someone didn't make it around the corner.
On the plus side his insurance premium will now be extortionate!
On 21/03/2024 15:45, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 21/03/2024 14:45, Martin Brown wrote:
On 21/03/2024 12:37, Clive Page wrote:
Another astonishing decision: a Ferrari crashed into bike racks in a
20 mph area of Norwich and both car and bike racks were badly
damaged. A video and various stills can be seen here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-norfolk-68598455
The initial reaction of the local police was: "no further action
would be taken". I'm astonished by this - I would have thought
that there's easily enough evidence for a charge of dangerous
driving - after all anyone on the pavement or near the bike rack
would have been badly injured or perhaps killed.
You think he should be punished for something that didn't happen? I
would support a charge of careless driving, but nothing more.
It does appear that someone has had second thoughts:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8v3ryp9052o
but can anyone think of an explanation for what was said initially?
Police CBA to do the paperwork.
It is a clear example of total loss of control at speed.
From the side road camera view and the time it took him between
appearing and disappearing, I estimate that, at that point, he was
doing around 25mph. Above the 20mph limit, but probably not
excessively so even at the point where he lost control. I think that
the wet road had a lot to do with him losing it in the bend.
My first impression simply from viewing the footage was that the speed
was higher. However, somebody going through this frame by frame, and measuring distances on the road, would be able to estimate the speed reasonably accurately.
I cannot say whether that would be accurate enough for evidential
purposes BRD.
There would be a day or two of fairly expert time involved, and it's a reasonable decision by the police to decide that the resources should be allocated elsewhere.
The road isn't even particularly bendy. All the "too fast" exit
points on our twisty country roads have gaps where someone didn't
make it around the corner.
On the plus side his insurance premium will now be extortionate!
Assuming he bothers to insure it.
On the plus side his insurance premium will now be extortionate!
According to reports, he wasn't the owner.
Another astonishing decision: a Ferrari crashed into bike racks in a 20
mph area of Norwich and both car and bike racks were badly damaged. A video and various stills can be seen here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-norfolk-68598455
The initial reaction of the local police was: "no further action would
be taken". I'm astonished by this - I would have thought that there's easily enough evidence for a charge of dangerous driving - after all
anyone on the pavement or near the bike rack would have been badly
injured or perhaps killed.
It does appear that someone has had second thoughts:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8v3ryp9052o
but can anyone think of an explanation for what was said initially?
On 21/03/2024 12:37, Clive Page wrote:
Another astonishing decision: a Ferrari crashed into bike racks in a
20 mph area of Norwich and both car and bike racks were badly
damaged. A video and various stills can be seen here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-norfolk-68598455
The initial reaction of the local police was: "no further action
would be taken". I'm astonished by this - I would have thought that >>there's easily enough evidence for a charge of dangerous driving -
after all anyone on the pavement or near the bike rack would have
been badly injured or perhaps killed.
It does appear that someone has had second thoughts:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8v3ryp9052o
but can anyone think of an explanation for what was said initially?
Estimations of the speed from the video indicate not much over 20mph,
so perhaps there was a patch of diesel on the road
or some other issue that caused the back end to step on on the corner,
which was the cause of the loos of control.
Estimations of the speed from the video indicate not much over 20mph, so perhaps there was a patch of diesel on the road or some other issue that caused the back end to step on on the corner, which was the cause of the
loos of control.
On 22/03/2024 10:04, Jeff wrote:
Estimations of the speed from the video indicate not much over 20mph, so
perhaps there was a patch of diesel on the road or some other issue that
caused the back end to step on on the corner, which was the cause of the
loos of control.
My first impression guestimate is much higher, maybe 40 mph.
Also, at 20 mph cars stop very quickly, this car didn't.
I suspect the police will now follow up and bring charges.
So in the fullness of time we might find out.
My first impression guestimate is much higher, maybe 40 mph.
Unfortunately, without some form of calculation, that impression is of
little worth, especially in the light of the effort already expended by
Colin Bignell in deriving an estimate from the evidence contained in the video:
Colin Bignell wrote:
“I used the on screen timer, which gave his time from appearing to disappearing as about two seconds, and the fact that give way markings have 600mm long lines, with 300mm gaps. That gave me lanes in the side road as being about 12 feet wide each plus pavements and the length of the car. I made that about 65 feet, which would be around 22-23 mph, which I rounded
up to 25. I wouldn't claim that gives an exact speed, but I doubt he was doing a lot more when he entered into view. He could well have been going faster when he entered the bend, but I can't measure that”.
Also, at 20 mph cars stop very quickly, this car didn't.
Ever tried stopping on a rain/diesel mixture on the roads, in a car with
wide tyres?
JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> remarked:
On the plus side his insurance premium will now be extortionate!
According to reports, he wasn't the owner.
Because he was a mate of the owner, or is the owner actually a finance company?
I can say from personal experience it's much simpler than that. If you
aren't used to driving a car that's much wider than normal, you'll be
very likely to clip the kerb from time to time. Combine that with low
profile tyres which react very differently to a side-swipe encounter
with the kerb than regular ones, and what you get is what we saw.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
I can say from personal experience it's much simpler than that. If you
aren't used to driving a car that's much wider than normal, you'll be
very likely to clip the kerb from time to time. Combine that with low
profile tyres which react very differently to a side-swipe encounter
with the kerb than regular ones, and what you get is what we saw.
It looks like mid-engine rear wheel drive too. I have not had the personal experience of driving a car like that but I have heard that the handling is very different from the front engine front wheel drive most people are used to.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
I can say from personal experience it's much simpler than that. If you
aren't used to driving a car that's much wider than normal, you'll be
very likely to clip the kerb from time to time. Combine that with low
profile tyres which react very differently to a side-swipe encounter
with the kerb than regular ones, and what you get is what we saw.
It looks like mid-engine rear wheel drive too. I have not had the personal >experience of driving a car like that but I have heard that the handling is >very different from the front engine front wheel drive most people are used >to.
My experience, many years ago, of driving a Ferrari Dino, predecessor of
the above, is that it was possible to spin the wheels in almost any gear, >even in dry conditions and that it was definitely not a car for the average >motorist.
I think driver-error the most likely cause of this accident.
Ever tried stopping on a rain/diesel mixture on the roads, in a car with
wide tyres?
On 22/03/2024 14:04, Spike wrote:
My first impression guestimate is much higher, maybe 40 mph.Unfortunately, without some form of calculation, that impression is
of
little worth, especially in the light of the effort already expended by
Colin Bignell in deriving an estimate from the evidence contained in the
video:
Colin Bignell wrote:
“I used the on screen timer, which gave his time from appearing to
disappearing as about two seconds, and the fact that give way markings have >> 600mm long lines, with 300mm gaps. That gave me lanes in the side road as
being about 12 feet wide each plus pavements and the length of the car. I
made that about 65 feet, which would be around 22-23 mph, which I rounded
up to 25. I wouldn't claim that gives an exact speed, but I doubt he was
doing a lot more when he entered into view. He could well have been going
faster when he entered the bend, but I can't measure that”.
Yes I read it, and was unconvinced.
Also, at 20 mph cars stop very quickly, this car didn't.
Ever tried stopping on a rain/diesel mixture on the roads, in a car
with wide tyres?
It wasn't raining, at most it was damp. Wide tyres have better grip, >presumably.
Charlie Alliston, the fixie cyclist killer, riding his bicycle built
for speed, at about 18mph, was supposed to be able to stop in 6m. This
car skidded for 40-50m, before hitting the bike stands.
In message <l65hf6F9t59U1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:04:22 on Fri, 22
Mar 2024, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
Ever tried stopping on a rain/diesel mixture on the roads, in a car with
wide tyres?
No, because diesel spills like that are extremely rare.
ps Was it raining in Norwich?
On 23/03/2024 07:25, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l65hf6F9t59U1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:04:22 on Fri, 22
Mar 2024, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
Ever tried stopping on a rain/diesel mixture on the roads, in a car
with wide tyres?
No, because diesel spills like that are extremely rare.
ps Was it raining in Norwich?
Puddles in the side road suggest that it had been.
In message <utk9ov$30q55$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:57:11 on Fri, 22 Mar
2024, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> remarked:
On 22/03/2024 14:04, Spike wrote:
My first impression guestimate is much higher, maybe 40 mph.Unfortunately, without some form of calculation, that impression is of >>> little worth, especially in the light of the effort already expended by
Colin Bignell in deriving an estimate from the evidence contained in the >>> video:
Colin Bignell wrote:
“I used the on screen timer, which gave his time from appearing to
disappearing as about two seconds, and the fact that give way
markings have
600mm long lines, with 300mm gaps. That gave me lanes in the side
road as
being about 12 feet wide each plus pavements and the length of the
car. I
made that about 65 feet, which would be around 22-23 mph, which I
rounded
up to 25. I wouldn't claim that gives an exact speed, but I doubt he was >>> doing a lot more when he entered into view. He could well have been
going
faster when he entered the bend, but I can't measure that”.
Yes I read it, and was unconvinced.
Also, at 20 mph cars stop very quickly, this car didn't.
Ever tried stopping on a rain/diesel mixture on the roads, in a car
with wide tyres?
It wasn't raining, at most it was damp.
Wide tyres have better grip,
presumably.
Charlie Alliston, the fixie cyclist killer, riding his bicycle built
for speed, at about 18mph, was supposed to be able to stop in 6m. This
car skidded for 40-50m, before hitting the bike stands.
The video I've seen has it hitting the bike stands at the start. Where
have you seen a video starting 40-50m earlier?
In message <nqCcneKbt5fdE2P4nZ2dnZeNn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>, at 08:09:40
on Sat, 23 Mar 2024, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> remarked:
On 23/03/2024 07:25, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l65hf6F9t59U1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:04:22 on Fri, 22
Mar 2024, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
Ever tried stopping on a rain/diesel mixture on the roads, in a car
with wide tyres?
No, because diesel spills like that are extremely rare.
ps Was it raining in Norwich?
Puddles in the side road suggest that it had been.
So the road surface in the vicinity of this mythical diesel spill could
have dried out.
In message <utkmgl$33u38$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:34:45 on Fri, 22 Mar
2024, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
I can say from personal experience it's much simpler than that. If you
aren't used to driving a car that's much wider than normal, you'll be
very likely to clip the kerb from time to time. Combine that with low
profile tyres which react very differently to a side-swipe encounter
with the kerb than regular ones, and what you get is what we saw.
It looks like mid-engine rear wheel drive too. I have not had the personal >> experience of driving a car like that but I have heard that the handling is >> very different from the front engine front wheel drive most people are used >> to.
I've had a mid-engined car, and the reason for that configuration is to
make it much *more stable*.
So unless you are familiar with four-wheel drifting a car taking into
account the weight imbalance of a front (or rear) engine, then it's
easier and safer to pilot a mid-engined one.
It should be noted that is an average speed across the end of the side
road, in which time the car hit the bike racks and was braking, so is
not a measure of its speed when it hit the bike racks. However, I still
think it is a case of driving too fast for the driver's capabilities
rather than driving at a particularly high speed.
Also, at 20 mph cars stop very quickly, this car didn't.
Ever tried stopping on a rain/diesel mixture on the roads, in a car
with wide tyres?
It wasn't raining, at most it was damp.
There were puddles in the side road. It is impossible to say whether or
not there were any at the point where he started to lose control.
Wide tyres have better grip,
presumably.
In the dry yes. In the wet, it depends heavily upon how good the tread pattern is at removing water and I can see nothing in the video that
might indicate how worn the tyres were.
Charlie Alliston, the fixie cyclist killer, riding his bicycle built
for speed, at about 18mph, was supposed to be able to stop in 6m.
This car skidded for 40-50m, before hitting the bike stands.
The video I've seen has it hitting the bike stands at the start. Where
have you seen a video starting 40-50m earlier?
There is a long view of the accident in the later part of the video
shown by the BBC.
On 23/03/2024 08:56, Colin Bignell wrote:
It should be noted that is an average speed across the end of the side
road, in which time the car hit the bike racks and was braking, so is
not a measure of its speed when it hit the bike racks. However, I
still think it is a case of driving too fast for the driver's
capabilities rather than driving at a particularly high speed.
You assessed his culpability for speeding at the end of the video, after
the collision, which clearly absorbed a lot of energy, after a period in which any reasonable driver would have braked?
Also, at 20 mph cars stop very quickly, this car didn't.
Ever tried stopping on a rain/diesel mixture on the roads, in a
car with wide tyres?
It wasn't raining, at most it was damp.
There were puddles in the side road. It is impossible to say whether
or not there were any at the point where he started to lose control.
There wasn't a puddle tens of meters long. There was no significant
spray, which you would expect if there was enough water for aquaplaning.
Wide tyres have better grip,
presumably.
In the dry yes. In the wet, it depends heavily upon how good the tread
pattern is at removing water and I can see nothing in the video that
might indicate how worn the tyres were.
3mm of tread is a legal requirement.
Charlie Alliston, the fixie cyclist killer, riding his bicycle built
for speed, at about 18mph, was supposed to be able to stop in 6m.
This car skidded for 40-50m, before hitting the bike stands.
The video I've seen has it hitting the bike stands at the start.
Where have you seen a video starting 40-50m earlier?
There is a long view of the accident in the later part of the video
shown by the BBC.
For a reminder, this was a 20mph zone. Charlie Alliston was in a 30mph
zone.
In message <nqCcneKbt5fdE2P4nZ2dnZeNn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>, at 08:09:40
on Sat, 23 Mar 2024, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
remarked:
On 23/03/2024 07:25, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l65hf6F9t59U1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:04:22 on Fri, 22
Mar 2024, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
Ever tried stopping on a rain/diesel mixture on the roads, in a car
with wide tyres?
No, because diesel spills like that are extremely rare.
ps Was it raining in Norwich?
Puddles in the side road suggest that it had been.
So the road surface in the vicinity of this mythical diesel spill could
have dried out.
In message <l66b0mFdn0uU1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:20:22 on Fri, 22
Mar 2024, Sir Tim <no_email@invalid.invalid> remarked:
My experience, many years ago, of driving a Ferrari Dino, predecessor of
the above, is that it was possible to spin the wheels in almost any gear,
even in dry conditions and that it was definitely not a car for the
average
motorist.
I had a very powerful rear wheel drive (front engine) car and you could
spin the wheels in 4th gear on a dry road at 60mph.
As a result it was "tail happy" so the motto was that you steered the
car at the rear with the accelerator, and the front by applying opposite lock. As you say, not for the average driver. Various high performance driving courses are available.
And no, I never once left the road, although one time when I took it in
for a service, the mechanic commented "this is the first time I've seen
one of these, not-in-a-ditch".
I think driver-error the most likely cause of this accident.
Yes, but I think not related to the brute force power, but it being
wider than they were used to driving (and hence prone to clip the kerb).
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <utkmgl$33u38$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:34:45 on Fri, 22 Mar
2024, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
I can say from personal experience it's much simpler than that. If you >>>> aren't used to driving a car that's much wider than normal, you'll be
very likely to clip the kerb from time to time. Combine that with low
profile tyres which react very differently to a side-swipe encounter
with the kerb than regular ones, and what you get is what we saw.
It looks like mid-engine rear wheel drive too. I have not had the personal >>> experience of driving a car like that but I have heard that the handling is >>> very different from the front engine front wheel drive most people are used >>> to.
I've had a mid-engined car, and the reason for that configuration is to
make it much *more stable*.
So unless you are familiar with four-wheel drifting a car taking into
account the weight imbalance of a front (or rear) engine, then it's
easier and safer to pilot a mid-engined one.
It seems to me that you are confirming that the handling is different.
About 10 seconds into the video on the BBC site it shows the car coming
round the corner before the crash. It does not look to me as if it is near >enough to the kerb for the wheels to have touched. The front of the car
turns to the left but the rear continues in more of a straight line >suggesting that the rear wheels have lost their grip.
That behaviour is consistent with the laws of physics when the centre of
mass of the car is further behind the front wheels than the driver is used >to.
I expect that someone with experience and knowledge of driving that type of >car could have made the appropriate correction and avoided the crash.
Perhaps it is the difference between having seen someone who knows what
they are doing and having been someone who knows what they are doing.
On 23/03/2024 08:51, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <nqCcneKbt5fdE2P4nZ2dnZeNn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>, at
08:09:40 on Sat, 23 Mar 2024, Colin Bignell
<cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> remarked:
On 23/03/2024 07:25, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l65hf6F9t59U1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:04:22 on Fri,
22 Mar 2024, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
Ever tried stopping on a rain/diesel mixture on the roads, in a
car with wide tyres?
No, because diesel spills like that are extremely rare.
ps Was it raining in Norwich?
Puddles in the side road suggest that it had been.
So the road surface in the vicinity of this mythical diesel spill
could have dried out.
Insufficient information to speculate about any part of that scenario. >However, IMO, a damp road and the application of too much power in a
bend is, by itself, enough to explain the attitude of the car as it
comes into view in the later part of the BBC video, which shows a
longer shot down Rose Lane.
It wasn't raining, at most it was damp.
There were puddles in the side road. It is impossible to say whether or
not there were any at the point where he started to lose control.
Wide tyres have better grip, presumably.
In the dry yes. In the wet, it depends heavily upon how good the tread >pattern is at removing water
and I can see nothing in the video that might indicate how worn the
tyres were.
In message <utm8tr$3imtd$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:55:07 on Sat, 23 Mar
2024, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <utkmgl$33u38$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:34:45 on Fri, 22 Mar
2024, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
I can say from personal experience it's much simpler than that. If you >>>>> aren't used to driving a car that's much wider than normal, you'll be >>>>> very likely to clip the kerb from time to time. Combine that with low >>>>> profile tyres which react very differently to a side-swipe encounter >>>>> with the kerb than regular ones, and what you get is what we saw.
It looks like mid-engine rear wheel drive too. I have not had the personal >>>> experience of driving a car like that but I have heard that the handling is
very different from the front engine front wheel drive most people are used
to.
I've had a mid-engined car, and the reason for that configuration is to
make it much *more stable*.
So unless you are familiar with four-wheel drifting a car taking into
account the weight imbalance of a front (or rear) engine, then it's
easier and safer to pilot a mid-engined one.
It seems to me that you are confirming that the handling is different.
It's different, but more stable and predictable, hence safer.
About 10 seconds into the video on the BBC site it shows the car coming
round the corner before the crash. It does not look to me as if it is near >> enough to the kerb for the wheels to have touched. The front of the car
turns to the left but the rear continues in more of a straight line
suggesting that the rear wheels have lost their grip.
That behaviour is consistent with the laws of physics when the centre of
mass of the car is further behind the front wheels than the driver is used >> to.
I fundamentally disagree with your analysis of the physics.
Remember I drove a mid-engined car for several years and have practical experience.
The video I saw starts with the front wheels steering *right*, adjacent
to the bike racks, which is consistent with a correction for understeer,
if the speed had been much faster.
I suspect however what's happened is the car has mounted the kerb at the front due to inattention and the driver is steering back towards the
middle of the road as a reflex action.
But he overdoes the correction, because pushing the front away from the
kerb inevitably pushes the back into the kerb and onto the pavement. And
then when the back of the car hits the raised flower bed, it goes out of control.
I expect that someone with experience and knowledge of driving that type of >> car could have made the appropriate correction and avoided the crash.
Perhaps it is the difference between having seen someone who knows what
they are doing and having been someone who knows what they are doing.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <utm8tr$3imtd$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:55:07 on Sat, 23 Mar
2024, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <utkmgl$33u38$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:34:45 on Fri, 22 Mar
2024, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
I can say from personal experience it's much simpler than that. If you >>>>>> aren't used to driving a car that's much wider than normal, you'll be >>>>>> very likely to clip the kerb from time to time. Combine that with low >>>>>> profile tyres which react very differently to a side-swipe encounter >>>>>> with the kerb than regular ones, and what you get is what we saw.
It looks like mid-engine rear wheel drive too. I have not had the >>>>>personal experience of driving a car like that but I have heard
that the handling is very different from the front engine front >>>>>wheel drive most people are used to.
I've had a mid-engined car, and the reason for that configuration is to >>>> make it much *more stable*.
So unless you are familiar with four-wheel drifting a car taking into
account the weight imbalance of a front (or rear) engine, then it's
easier and safer to pilot a mid-engined one.
It seems to me that you are confirming that the handling is different.
It's different, but more stable and predictable, hence safer.
Random bloggers on the internet have a lot to say about the handling of the >various configurations. One suggests that the smaller polar moment of
inertia for a mid engine car means that they are easier to spin and harder
to correct if they start to spin.
The random bloggers seem to be people who at least claim to own and
drive cars of that kind and the common theme seems to be that it is
wise to have specialist instruction or at least practice in a safe >environment to deal with the handling characteristics.
Your experience of driving that type of car probably means that you would >either have not got into that situation or would have reacted in a way more >appropriate to that type of car. The reports do not say how much experience >the driver had in a high powered mid engined car but the video suggests not >enough.
I think it is unwise to assume that experience in the more common front >engine front wheel drive car equips the driver to handle a mid engine car >safely even if they would be able to handle it after gaining some
experience.
Unlike commercial airline pilots flying different types of aircraft, as far >as I am aware there are no regulations requiring drivers of road vehicles
to have additional training for vehicles of a different type if they fall >within the same class as far as the driving licence is concerned.
Perhaps the interesting question is whether or not it makes a difference
for a charge of careless driving depending on whether this was the driver’s >first time driving that kind of car or if they had many years experience of >driving that kind of car.
Random bloggers on the internet have a lot to say about the handling of the various configurations. One suggests that the smaller polar moment of
inertia for a mid engine car means that they are easier to spin and harder
to correct if they start to spin.
That is the only point at which it is measurable. However, looking at
the long view of the accident, it is my view that, while he may have
been exceeding the speed limit, he wasn't travelling enormously fast
when the car came around the bend.
For a reminder, this was a 20mph zone. Charlie Alliston was in a 30mph
zone.
Which is irrelevant both to this case and to a charge of wanton and
furious driving. The stopping distance of a bike is not comparable to
that of a car on a damp road when it has obviously already lost grip.
On 23/03/2024 10:27, Pancho wrote:
On 23/03/2024 08:56, Colin Bignell wrote:
It should be noted that is an average speed across the end of the
side road, in which time the car hit the bike racks and was braking,
so is not a measure of its speed when it hit the bike racks. However,
I still think it is a case of driving too fast for the driver's
capabilities rather than driving at a particularly high speed.
You assessed his culpability for speeding at the end of the video,
after the collision, which clearly absorbed a lot of energy, after a
period in which any reasonable driver would have braked?
That is the only point at which it is measurable. However, looking at
the long view of the accident, it is my view that, while he may have
been exceeding the speed limit, he wasn't travelling enormously fast
when the car came around the bend.
There were puddles in the side road. It is impossible to say whether
or not there were any at the point where he started to lose control.
There wasn't a puddle tens of meters long. There was no significant
spray, which you would expect if there was enough water for aquaplaning.
As I have said, I think the accident was the result of applying too much power in a bend on a damp road. That does not require any aquaplaning to occur. With the power available to that car, it would have been
possible, if less likely, on a completely dry road.
On 23/03/2024 11:19, Colin Bignell wrote:
That is the only point at which it is measurable. However, looking at
the long view of the accident, it is my view that, while he may have
been exceeding the speed limit, he wasn't travelling enormously fast
when the car came around the bend.
You can estimate speed from the moment it comes into view around the
corner to the point it hits the bike rack. It's a little tricky, but it
can be done.
[]
For a reminder, this was a 20mph zone. Charlie Alliston was in a
30mph zone.
Which is irrelevant both to this case and to a charge of wanton and
furious driving. The stopping distance of a bike is not comparable to
that of a car on a damp road when it has obviously already lost grip.
The point of the comparison is to show the astonishing double standard
that exists. People will jump through all sorts of hoops to excuse a car crash, but a cyclist is expected to be able to react and stop
astonishingly quickly.
A cyclist breaking a minor law is homicidal premeditation.
A motorist
speeding is: we all do it, didn't happen unless it can be proved 100%,
and is totally excusable if it is only a little over the limit.
From the video, there is no doubt in my mind that this driver was not driving safely and should be prosecuted. That this was not just one of
those accidents that could happen to anyone. That his level of
premeditated culpability was at least as great as Alliston's.
I think driver-error the most likely cause of this accident.
On 22/03/2024 21:20, Sir Tim wrote:
I think driver-error the most likely cause of this accident.
I remember test driving a Honda NSX. I was not used to a six speed gear
box, and inadvertently changed down into second gear, instead of
fourth. This was at 70 MPH, and there was a howl from the engine,
followed shortly after that by a howl from the car salesman.
Big difference: nobody got injured, much less killed. I have little
doubt that he was driving carelessly. However, taking somebody to Court
is expensive, so the CPS will not prosecute unless it is in the public interest to do so and there is sufficient evidence to get a conviction.
I am not sure that the video alone is sufficient to get a conviction, as
it gives no indication of why the car came around the bend slightly
sideways. It could have been the mythical diesel spill on a wet road, mentioned in this thread, or swerving to avoid a careless pedestrian, or something else the defence comes up with to create reasonable doubt.
Spinning is not a particularly common form of "losing control". A
mid-engined car will however consume a smaller footprint on the road
surface, so less likely to hit things.
Such driving techniques, however, are only required if in a tremendous
hurry - something less and less possible on crowded roads with ever >decreasing speed limits. If driven at what we might call "normal"
speeds, a mid-engined car feels like it's on railway lines.
Its not compulsory to drive a car as if you think you are "The Stig".
Indeed, but don't forget a mid-engined car is easier and safer to drive, >*not* more inherently dangerous, as you keep implying.
On 24/03/2024 00:55, Owen Rees wrote:
Random bloggers on the internet have a lot to say about the handling of the >> various configurations. One suggests that the smaller polar moment of
inertia for a mid engine car means that they are easier to spin and harder >> to correct if they start to spin.
What is a polar moment of inertia, how is it different from a moment of >inertia? Why would having a low one make it harder to correct a spin.
I'll admit my skill at mechanics is surprisingly poor, but my BS
detector is ringing.
On 24/03/2024 11:23, Colin Bignell wrote:
Big difference: nobody got injured, much less killed. I have little
doubt that he was driving carelessly. However, taking somebody to Court
is expensive, so the CPS will not prosecute unless it is in the public
interest to do so and there is sufficient evidence to get a conviction.
I am not sure that the video alone is sufficient to get a conviction, as
it gives no indication of why the car came around the bend slightly
sideways. It could have been the mythical diesel spill on a wet road,
mentioned in this thread, or swerving to avoid a careless pedestrian, or
something else the defence comes up with to create reasonable doubt.
It is possibly because someone had heard about accelerating out of a
bend, but didn't realise that dabbing the accelerator with 400 bhp on a wettish road will cause the back wheels to spin and lose nearly all
their grip. Once the car was out of line, a skilled driver would have
some trouble, and someone new to the car would almost inevitably hit something - in this case, the cycle racks. :)
On 23/03/2024 11:19, Colin Bignell wrote:
That is the only point at which it is measurable. However, looking at
the long view of the accident, it is my view that, while he may have
been exceeding the speed limit, he wasn't travelling enormously fast
when the car came around the bend.
You can estimate speed from the moment it comes into view around the
corner to the point it hits the bike rack. It's a little tricky, but it
can be done.
[]
For a reminder, this was a 20mph zone. Charlie Alliston was in a
30mph zone.
Which is irrelevant both to this case and to a charge of wanton and
furious driving. The stopping distance of a bike is not comparable to
that of a car on a damp road when it has obviously already lost grip.
The point of the comparison is to show the astonishing double standard
that exists. People will jump through all sorts of hoops to excuse a car crash, but a cyclist is expected to be able to react and stop
astonishingly quickly.
A cyclist breaking a minor law is homicidal premeditation. A motorist speeding is: we all do it, didn't happen unless it can be proved 100%,
and is totally excusable if it is only a little over the limit.
From the video, there is no doubt in my mind that this driver was not driving safely and should be prosecuted. That this was not just one of
those accidents that could happen to anyone.>
That his level of
premeditated culpability was at least as great as Alliston's.
If someone asked me whether I wanted to try out a Ferrari "around the
block", I would decline. I have never driven an exoticar, but I am
aware of how difficult such a car must be to control until after you
have become used to the pedals and their functions. Any high
performance car takes some getting used to.
On 24/03/2024 08:58, Pancho wrote:
On 23/03/2024 11:19, Colin Bignell wrote:
You can estimate speed from the moment it comes into view around the >>corner to the point it hits the bike rack. It's a little tricky, but
That is the only point at which it is measurable. However, looking
at the long view of the accident, it is my view that, while he may
have been exceeding the speed limit, he wasn't travelling enormously >>>fast when the car came around the bend.
it can be done.
Do you have an estimate and can you provide the reasoning behind it, as
I did?
[]
The point of the comparison is to show the astonishing double
For a reminder, this was a 20mph zone. Charlie Alliston was in a
30mph zone.
Which is irrelevant both to this case and to a charge of wanton and >>>furious driving. The stopping distance of a bike is not comparable to >>>that of a car on a damp road when it has obviously already lost grip.
standard that exists. People will jump through all sorts of hoops to >>excuse a car crash, but a cyclist is expected to be able to react and
stop astonishingly quickly.
A cyclist breaking a minor law is homicidal premeditation.
I think it was less about his breaking a a law that you consider to be
minor than about the way he was cycling, with a total disregard for the >safety of both himself and others.
A motorist speeding is: we all do it, didn't happen unless it can be >>proved 100%, and is totally excusable if it is only a little over the >>limit.
That last would be in line with the Road Research Laboratories >recommendation, later adopted as policy by the Department of Transport,
that speed limits should not be viewed as a means to get all traffic to
drive at or below the set limit, but as a way to significantly reduce
the number of vehicles that grossly exceed it. The RRL did not define
grossly exceed, but the examples they gave in their report would match
the ACPO recommendations that, where speeding is the only offence, >prosecution is not usually appropriate, unless the speed is the limit +
10% + 2mph or higher (with 25mph in a 20mph limit added later).
From the video, there is no doubt in my mind that this driver was
not driving safely and should be prosecuted. That this was not just
one of those accidents that could happen to anyone. That his level of >>premeditated culpability was at least as great as Alliston's.
Big difference: nobody got injured, much less killed. I have little
doubt that he was driving carelessly. However, taking somebody to Court
is expensive, so the CPS will not prosecute unless it is in the public >interest to do so
and there is sufficient evidence to get a conviction.
I am not sure that the video alone is sufficient to get a conviction,
as it gives no indication of why the car came around the bend slightly >sideways. It could have been the mythical diesel spill on a wet road,
mentioned in this thread, or swerving to avoid a careless pedestrian,
or something else the defence comes up with to create reasonable doubt.
In message <yDudnaOmqKe0kJ37nZ2dnZeNn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>, at 11:23:40
on Sun, 24 Mar 2024, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> remarked:
On 24/03/2024 08:58, Pancho wrote:
On 23/03/2024 11:19, Colin Bignell wrote:
You can estimate speed from the moment it comes into view around the
That is the only point at which it is measurable. However, looking
at the long view of the accident, it is my view that, while he may
have been exceeding the speed limit, he wasn't travelling
enormously fast when the car came around the bend.
corner to the point it hits the bike rack. It's a little tricky, but
it can be done.
Do you have an estimate and can you provide the reasoning behind it,
as I did?
[]
The point of the comparison is to show the astonishing double
For a reminder, this was a 20mph zone. Charlie Alliston was in a
30mph zone.
Which is irrelevant both to this case and to a charge of wanton and
furious driving. The stopping distance of a bike is not comparable
to that of a car on a damp road when it has obviously already lost
grip.
standard that exists. People will jump through all sorts of hoops to
excuse a car crash, but a cyclist is expected to be able to react
and stop astonishingly quickly.
A cyclist breaking a minor law is homicidal premeditation.
I think it was less about his breaking a a law that you consider to be
minor than about the way he was cycling, with a total disregard for
the safety of both himself and others.
A motorist speeding is: we all do it, didn't happen unless it can be
proved 100%, and is totally excusable if it is only a little over
the limit.
That last would be in line with the Road Research Laboratories
recommendation, later adopted as policy by the Department of
Transport, that speed limits should not be viewed as a means to get
all traffic to drive at or below the set limit, but as a way to
significantly reduce the number of vehicles that grossly exceed it.
The RRL did not define grossly exceed, but the examples they gave in
their report would match the ACPO recommendations that, where speeding
is the only offence, prosecution is not usually appropriate, unless
the speed is the limit + 10% + 2mph or higher (with 25mph in a 20mph
limit added later).
From the video, there is no doubt in my mind that this driver was
not driving safely and should be prosecuted. That this was not just
one of those accidents that could happen to anyone. That his level
of premeditated culpability was at least as great as Alliston's.
Big difference: nobody got injured, much less killed. I have little
doubt that he was driving carelessly. However, taking somebody to
Court is expensive, so the CPS will not prosecute unless it is in the
public interest to do so
A phrase which is much misunderstood. It doesn't mean "this is a high
profile case and we want to send a message", rather it's "could we spend
the limited time and money we have better, on other cases [of other
crimes]".
and there is sufficient evidence to get a conviction.
... 50% of the time. That applies to *all* prosecutions.
I am not sure that the video alone is sufficient to get a conviction,
as it gives no indication of why the car came around the bend slightly
sideways. It could have been the mythical diesel spill on a wet road,
The police will have attended the scene, and documented if there was
such a spill.
mentioned in this thread, or swerving to avoid a careless pedestrian,
or something else the defence comes up with to create reasonable doubt.
BTW, if I appear to be ignoring any posts, it is because Giganews is not finding all the available posts. I can see more on a different viewer,
but that does not allow me to post replies.
Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
[…]
BTW, if I appear to be ignoring any posts, it is because Giganews is not
finding all the available posts. I can see more on a different viewer,
but that does not allow me to post replies.
Try this site as a reader, although you can post if you set up an account (which is very easy to do). It seems to get all the messages:
<https://news.novabbs.org/aus+uk/thread.php?group=uk.legal.moderated>
HTH
On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 08:56:43 +0000, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me>
wrote in <utoq9q$8l7e$1@dont-email.me>:
On 24/03/2024 00:55, Owen Rees wrote:
Random bloggers on the internet have a lot to say about the handling of the >>> various configurations. One suggests that the smaller polar moment of
inertia for a mid engine car means that they are easier to spin and harder >>> to correct if they start to spin.
What is a polar moment of inertia, how is it different from a moment of
inertia? Why would having a low one make it harder to correct a spin.
I'll admit my skill at mechanics is surprisingly poor, but my BS
detector is ringing.
I may have been mixing up two terms found in this blog: https://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/threads/mid-engine-handling-dynamics-what-do-you-know.31628/
The posters there are generally discussing faster speeds than the
Norwich incident but there are several mentions of spinning a mid-engine
car.
The BBC Norwich video (at 10s) shows the car having turned too far anti-clockwise - is that the start of a minor spin or something else?
Either way I think it indicates a lack of ability to control the
direction the car is pointing.
https://www.leithcars.com/blogs/1421/lifestyle/front-vs-mid-vs-rear-engines/ also has some interesting comparisons.
As for 'polar moment of inertia' - it is a real thing but I am not sure
that it applies in this case. Here is one of the descriptions I found: https://pediaa.com/difference-between-moment-of-inertia-and-polar-moment-of-inertia/
On 24/03/2024 08:58, Pancho wrote:
On 23/03/2024 11:19, Colin Bignell wrote:
That is the only point at which it is measurable. However, looking at
the long view of the accident, it is my view that, while he may have
been exceeding the speed limit, he wasn't travelling enormously fast
when the car came around the bend.
You can estimate speed from the moment it comes into view around the
corner to the point it hits the bike rack. It's a little tricky, but
it can be done.
Do you have an estimate and can you provide the reasoning behind it, as
I did?
[]
For a reminder, this was a 20mph zone. Charlie Alliston was in a
30mph zone.
Which is irrelevant both to this case and to a charge of wanton and
furious driving. The stopping distance of a bike is not comparable to
that of a car on a damp road when it has obviously already lost grip.
The point of the comparison is to show the astonishing double standard
that exists. People will jump through all sorts of hoops to excuse a
car crash, but a cyclist is expected to be able to react and stop
astonishingly quickly.
A cyclist breaking a minor law is homicidal premeditation.
I think it was less about his breaking a a law that you consider to be
minor than about the way he was cycling, with a total disregard for the safety of both himself and others.
A motorist speeding is: we all do it, didn't happen unless it can be
proved 100%, and is totally excusable if it is only a little over the
limit.
That last would be in line with the Road Research Laboratories recommendation, later adopted as policy by the Department of Transport,
that speed limits should not be viewed as a means to get all traffic to
drive at or below the set limit, but as a way to significantly reduce
the number of vehicles that grossly exceed it. The RRL did not define
grossly exceed, but the examples they gave in their report would match
the ACPO recommendations that, where speeding is the only offence, prosecution is not usually appropriate, unless the speed is the limit +
10% + 2mph or higher (with 25mph in a 20mph limit added later).
From the video, there is no doubt in my mind that this driver was not
driving safely and should be prosecuted. That this was not just one of
those accidents that could happen to anyone. That his level of
premeditated culpability was at least as great as Alliston's.
Big difference: nobody got injured, much less killed. I have little
doubt that he was driving carelessly.
However, taking somebody to Court
is expensive, so the CPS will not prosecute unless it is in the public interest to do so and there is sufficient evidence to get a conviction.
I am not sure that the video alone is sufficient to get a conviction, as
it gives no indication of why the car came around the bend slightly
sideways. It could have been the mythical diesel spill on a wet road, mentioned in this thread, or swerving to avoid a careless pedestrian, or something else the defence comes up with to create reasonable doubt.
On 24/03/2024 11:23, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 24/03/2024 08:58, Pancho wrote:
On 23/03/2024 11:19, Colin Bignell wrote:
That is the only point at which it is measurable. However, looking
at the long view of the accident, it is my view that, while he may
have been exceeding the speed limit, he wasn't travelling enormously
fast when the car came around the bend.
You can estimate speed from the moment it comes into view around the
corner to the point it hits the bike rack. It's a little tricky, but
it can be done.
Do you have an estimate and can you provide the reasoning behind it,
as I did?
The map says it is about 50m from the corner to the second bike rack.
The time is 2-3 seconds. So the average speed is > 30mph, probably
nearer 40mph max. Also, the handling of the car, and impact give an impression the car was going well over 20mph.
The point isn't that mine is a good calculation, but that yours is
flawed from the get-go.
Some people will cherry-pick any old nonsense to
re-enforce their prejudice.
[]
For a reminder, this was a 20mph zone. Charlie Alliston was in a
30mph zone.
Which is irrelevant both to this case and to a charge of wanton and
furious driving. The stopping distance of a bike is not comparable
to that of a car on a damp road when it has obviously already lost
grip.
The point of the comparison is to show the astonishing double
standard that exists. People will jump through all sorts of hoops to
excuse a car crash, but a cyclist is expected to be able to react and
stop astonishingly quickly.
A cyclist breaking a minor law is homicidal premeditation.
I think it was less about his breaking a a law that you consider to be
minor than about the way he was cycling, with a total disregard for
the safety of both himself and others.
He was riding on a 30mph road at 18mph, in the dry,
he had seconds to
react to someone stepping into his path, he couldn't brake in time. The “total disregard for safety” is your hyperbolic spin,
in objective terms
he was riding quite averagely.
Alliston, had 7m in which to react and stop.
The Ferrari was out of
control 50m before the collision, but people are searching for excuses.
It was wet, there may have been oil on the road, the tyres might not
have tread.
A motorist speeding is: we all do it, didn't happen unless it can be
proved 100%, and is totally excusable if it is only a little over the
limit.
That last would be in line with the Road Research Laboratories
recommendation, later adopted as policy by the Department of
Transport, that speed limits should not be viewed as a means to get
all traffic to drive at or below the set limit, but as a way to
significantly reduce the number of vehicles that grossly exceed it.
The RRL did not define grossly exceed, but the examples they gave in
their report would match the ACPO recommendations that, where speeding
is the only offence, prosecution is not usually appropriate, unless
the speed is the limit + 10% + 2mph or higher (with 25mph in a 20mph
limit added later).
Yes, yes, I know, although it is technically a crime, it isn't really, because the police don't prosecute.
On the other-hand, the fact the
police don't normally prosecute cyclists either, for pretty much
anything, is an outrage.
Do you see the double standard?
From the video, there is no doubt in my mind that this driver was
not driving safely and should be prosecuted. That this was not just
one of those accidents that could happen to anyone. That his level of
premeditated culpability was at least as great as Alliston's.
Big difference: nobody got injured, much less killed. I have little
doubt that he was driving carelessly.
We were discussing culpability. Using outcome is just a pragmatic device
to compensate for the court's inability to judge risk/recklessness accurately.
If the conditional probability of being prosecuted after a pedestrian
death was the same for a cyclist and motorist, I would say fair enough.
But it isn't, normally a motorist is excused: “nothing you could do mate”, “could happen to anyone”, “he came out of nowhere”. Whereas a
cyclist is normally riding “with a total disregard for the safety of others”.
However, taking somebody to Court is expensive, so the CPS will not
prosecute unless it is in the public interest to do so and there is
sufficient evidence to get a conviction. I am not sure that the video
alone is sufficient to get a conviction, as it gives no indication of
why the car came around the bend slightly sideways. It could have been
the mythical diesel spill on a wet road, mentioned in this thread, or
swerving to avoid a careless pedestrian, or something else the defence
comes up with to create reasonable doubt.
That is because you appear to believe it is acceptable for motorists to
drive with a disregard for the safety of others.
On 21/03/2024 02:45 pm, Martin Brown wrote:
On 21/03/2024 12:37, Clive Page wrote:
Another astonishing decision: a Ferrari crashed into bike racks in a
20 mph area of Norwich and both car and bike racks were badly
damaged. A video and various stills can be seen here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-norfolk-68598455
The initial reaction of the local police was: "no further action
would be taken". I'm astonished by this - I would have thought that
there's easily enough evidence for a charge of dangerous driving -
after all anyone on the pavement or near the bike rack would have
been badly injured or perhaps killed.
It does appear that someone has had second thoughts:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8v3ryp9052o
but can anyone think of an explanation for what was said initially?
Police CBA to do the paperwork.
It is a clear example of total loss of control at speed.
That much must be true (FCVA "speed"). But put as simply as that, that
is some way short of allowing one to reasonably conclude that an offence
has been committed.
I have held a driving licence - continuously - for in excess of fifty
years. Most vehicles I have driven over that time has been fairly easy
to get to grips with. But on the few occasions when I have had the
chance to drive very powerful cars (not in the Ferrari's class, but much
more pokey than my usual cars and powered at maybe 3,000cc and more), controlling the accelerator and brakes needed a fair bit of practice.
Anyone who said they didn't is over-estimating their own capabilities.
The road isn't even particularly bendy. All the "too fast" exit points
on our twisty country roads have gaps where someone didn't make it
around the corner.
On the plus side his insurance premium will now be extortionate!
According to reports, he wasn't the owner.
In message <Tv6dnTYBie70N2P4nZ2dnZeNn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>, at 10:09:51
on Sat, 23 Mar 2024, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> remarked:
On 23/03/2024 08:51, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <nqCcneKbt5fdE2P4nZ2dnZeNn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>, at
08:09:40 on Sat, 23 Mar 2024, Colin Bignell
<cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> remarked:
On 23/03/2024 07:25, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <l65hf6F9t59U1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:04:22 on Fri,
22 Mar 2024, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
Ever tried stopping on a rain/diesel mixture on the roads, in a
car with wide tyres?
No, because diesel spills like that are extremely rare.
ps Was it raining in Norwich?
Puddles in the side road suggest that it had been.
So the road surface in the vicinity of this mythical diesel spill
could have dried out.
Insufficient information to speculate about any part of that scenario.
However, IMO, a damp road and the application of too much power in a
bend is, by itself, enough to explain the attitude of the car as it
comes into view in the later part of the BBC video, which shows a
longer shot down Rose Lane.
I have already described in some detail the "steer the back with the accelerator, the front with the steering wheel" mode of driving, but
it's only safe if you have enough road to accommodate a not
insignificantly sideways car.
On 24/03/2024 11:23, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 24/03/2024 08:58, Pancho wrote:
For a reminder, this was a 20mph zone. Charlie Alliston was in a
30mph zone.
Which is irrelevant both to this case and to a charge of wanton and
furious driving. The stopping distance of a bike is not comparable
to that of a car on a damp road when it has obviously already lost
grip.
The point of the comparison is to show the astonishing double
standard that exists. People will jump through all sorts of hoops to
excuse a car crash, but a cyclist is expected to be able to react and
stop astonishingly quickly.
A cyclist breaking a minor law is homicidal premeditation.
I think it was less about his breaking a a law that you consider to be
minor than about the way he was cycling, with a total disregard for
the safety of both himself and others.
He was riding on a 30mph road at 18mph, in the dry, he had seconds to
react to someone stepping into his path, he couldn't brake in time. The “total disregard for safety” is your hyperbolic spin, in objective terms he was riding quite averagely.
Alliston, had 7m in which to react and stop. The Ferrari was out of
control 50m before the collision, but people are searching for excuses.
It was wet, there may have been oil on the road, the tyres might not
have tread.
A motorist speeding is: we all do it, didn't happen unless it can be
proved 100%, and is totally excusable if it is only a little over the
limit.
That last would be in line with the Road Research Laboratories
recommendation, later adopted as policy by the Department of
Transport, that speed limits should not be viewed as a means to get
all traffic to drive at or below the set limit, but as a way to
significantly reduce the number of vehicles that grossly exceed it.
The RRL did not define grossly exceed, but the examples they gave in
their report would match the ACPO recommendations that, where speeding
is the only offence, prosecution is not usually appropriate, unless
the speed is the limit + 10% + 2mph or higher (with 25mph in a 20mph
limit added later).
Yes, yes, I know, although it is technically a crime, it isn't really, because the police don't prosecute. On the other-hand, the fact the
police don't normally prosecute cyclists either, for pretty much
anything, is an outrage. Do you see the double standard?
From the video, there is no doubt in my mind that this driver was
not driving safely and should be prosecuted. That this was not just
one of those accidents that could happen to anyone. That his level of
premeditated culpability was at least as great as Alliston's.
Big difference: nobody got injured, much less killed. I have little
doubt that he was driving carelessly.
We were discussing culpability. Using outcome is just a pragmatic device
to compensate for the court's inability to judge risk/recklessness accurately.
If the conditional probability of being prosecuted after a pedestrian
death was the same for a cyclist and motorist, I would say fair enough.
But it isn't, normally a motorist is excused: “nothing you could do mate”, “could happen to anyone”, “he came out of nowhere”. Whereas a
cyclist is normally riding “with a total disregard for the safety of others”.
However, taking somebody to Court is expensive, so the CPS will not
prosecute unless it is in the public interest to do so and there is
sufficient evidence to get a conviction. I am not sure that the video
alone is sufficient to get a conviction, as it gives no indication of
why the car came around the bend slightly sideways. It could have been
the mythical diesel spill on a wet road, mentioned in this thread, or
swerving to avoid a careless pedestrian, or something else the defence
comes up with to create reasonable doubt.
That is because you appear to believe it is acceptable for motorists to
drive with a disregard for the safety of others.
On 24/03/2024 11:23, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 24/03/2024 08:58, Pancho wrote:
On 23/03/2024 11:19, Colin Bignell wrote:
That is the only point at which it is measurable. However, looking at
the long view of the accident, it is my view that, while he may have
been exceeding the speed limit, he wasn't travelling enormously fast
when the car came around the bend.
You can estimate speed from the moment it comes into view around the
corner to the point it hits the bike rack. It's a little tricky, but
it can be done.
Do you have an estimate and can you provide the reasoning behind it, as
I did?
The map says it is about 50m from the corner to the second bike rack.
The time is 2-3 seconds. So the average speed is > 30mph, probably
nearer 40mph max. Also, the handling of the car, and impact give an impression the car was going well over 20mph.
The point isn't that mine is a good calculation, but that yours is
flawed from the get-go. Some people will cherry-pick any old nonsense to re-enforce their prejudice.
[]
For a reminder, this was a 20mph zone. Charlie Alliston was in a
30mph zone.
Which is irrelevant both to this case and to a charge of wanton and
furious driving. The stopping distance of a bike is not comparable to
that of a car on a damp road when it has obviously already lost grip.
The point of the comparison is to show the astonishing double standard
that exists. People will jump through all sorts of hoops to excuse a
car crash, but a cyclist is expected to be able to react and stop
astonishingly quickly.
A cyclist breaking a minor law is homicidal premeditation.
I think it was less about his breaking a a law that you consider to be
minor than about the way he was cycling, with a total disregard for the
safety of both himself and others.
He was riding on a 30mph road at 18mph, in the dry, he had seconds to
react to someone stepping into his path, he couldn't brake in time. The “total disregard for safety” is your hyperbolic spin, in objective terms he was riding quite averagely.
Alliston, had 7m in which to react and stop.
Another astonishing decision: a Ferrari crashed into bike racks in a
20 mph area of Norwich and both car and bike racks were badly damaged.
A video and various stills can be seen here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-norfolk-68598455
The initial reaction of the local police was: "no further action would
be taken". I'm astonished by this - I would have thought that
there's easily enough evidence for a charge of dangerous driving -
after all anyone on the pavement or near the bike rack would have been
badly injured or perhaps killed.
It does appear that someone has had second thoughts:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8v3ryp9052o
but can anyone think of an explanation for what was said initially?
On 13:37 21 Mar 2024, Clive Page said:
Another astonishing decision: a Ferrari crashed into bike racks in a
20 mph area of Norwich and both car and bike racks were badly damaged.
A video and various stills can be seen here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-norfolk-68598455
The initial reaction of the local police was: "no further action would
be taken". I'm astonished by this - I would have thought that
there's easily enough evidence for a charge of dangerous driving -
after all anyone on the pavement or near the bike rack would have been
badly injured or perhaps killed.
It does appear that someone has had second thoughts:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8v3ryp9052o
This page is now missing.
but can anyone think of an explanation for what was said initially?
Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 13:37 21 Mar 2024, Clive Page said:
Another astonishing decision: a Ferrari crashed into bike racks in a
20 mph area of Norwich and both car and bike racks were badly damaged.
A video and various stills can be seen here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-norfolk-68598455
The initial reaction of the local police was: "no further action would
be taken". I'm astonished by this - I would have thought that
there's easily enough evidence for a charge of dangerous driving -
after all anyone on the pavement or near the bike rack would have been
badly injured or perhaps killed.
It does appear that someone has had second thoughts:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8v3ryp9052o
This page is now missing.
The link worked for me just now.
If driven at what we might call "normal" speeds, a mid-engined car
feels like it's on railway lines.
That may be an unfortunate analogy. Coming off the rails tends to be >catastrophic.
My point is that most drivers in the UK have no experience of driving a >mid-engine rear wheel drive car. It may be that under normal
circumstances it is easer to handle but under less than ideal
conditions, when the car has not done what the driver intended, that
lack of experience can have serious consequences.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 37:00:22 |
| Calls: | 6,707 |
| Files: | 12,239 |
| Messages: | 5,353,495 |