OV9

Looks like Chris has had a little crash...



Apparently he was driving near his house, and crashed into a pick-up doing a 3-point turn

Can’t tell if it’s his black Touring, or a press car

Ttiuwp

Here’s Auntie’s take on it -https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-46180051

Everyone is fine, etc

Made me remember Kris Kross.

Apparently it’s was a GT3 Touring

Chris owns a GT3 Touring, which is black

Ouchie. Looks painful.

Richard wrote: Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:14 pm Here’s Auntie’s take on it -https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-46180051

Crashes Porsche! Embedded in truck! Such Drama!

Always drive to what you can see folks.

Must be a height thing.

Richard wrote: Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:08 pm

Apparently he was driving near his house, and crashed into a pick-up doing a 3-point turn

It looks pretty close to a sharp and blind bend, not ideal doing a 3 point turn there lol

The moron turning around in the road around a blind bend that he hit got a fixed penalty notice for his trouble. There is always the be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear argument, but how many of the great unwashed really do that all the time?

What if it was a pair of cyclists riding 2 abreast or a horse or a broken down vehicle.

tim wrote: Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:21 am The moron turning around in the road around a blind bend that he hit got a fixed penalty notice for his trouble. There is always the be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear argument, but how many of the great unwashed really do that all the time?

Surely if CH came round the corner and the pick up was broadside across the road, then it’s CHs fault he crashed into him, regardless of whether the truck is legally allowed to be there or not and regardless of whether CH is under or over the speed limit.

Shit happens, we’ve all had lapses of concentration or bad assessments.

How do you come to that conclusion? Just because the pickup driver caused an accident by being stationary rather than by driving into CH makes no difference. He initiated and directly caused by his actions, an accident that another driver (not acting negligently), could not avoid.

GG. wrote: Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:20 am How do you come to that conclusion? Just because the pickup driver caused an action by being stationary rather than by driving into CH makes no difference. He initiated and directly caused by his actions, an accident that another driver (not acting negligently), could not avoid.

if you drive head on into a stationary object, what other conclusion is there?

The Police clearly disagree with you.

The test is what a careful and competent driver would reasonably expect to happen. If he'd piled into a hoss or some weirdos on motorcycles missing their engines then I expect he'd have been in trouble *if* he was making more progress than would be sensible on a road where those things are likely to be about.

Doing a u-turn in a truck with a trailer on it round an un-sighted corner clearly fails that test, and CH wouldn't reasonably expect it to be there. The police on the scene were apparently not interested in his speed.

He was just unlucky I think.

@Rich: You mean - if you hit an object that someone has negligently left obstructing the highway. The conclusion is that the individual causing said dangerous obstruction, is the one liable.

What you are really thinking about is whether CH would be contributorily negligent - his actions (as reported) fall a long way short of that. The test for that is not "contributorily negligent unless you could stop in the distance you can see".

Fair enough, I’m surprised, but then I’m a believer in the “being able to stop in the distance you can see” over all other rules of the road.