View previous topic | View next topic

The "Blackboard/Chalkboard" thing

Page 3 of 7
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

barbados
1342317.  Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:50 am Reply with quote

Iíd agree with most of that, but Iíd say the number of no fault collisions, rather than more than zero, would be negligible

 
PDR
1342318.  Tue Feb 11, 2020 8:10 am Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:
PDR wrote:
There are plenty of potential scenarios in which cars collide without anyone being to blame


Are there? I imagine there are a non-zero number, but the general attitude seems to be that usually someone can be blamed.


The law still uses the term "accident" even where blame is to be apportioned (Road Traffic Act etc) by a court. AIUI the police changed terminology so that people could sign statements without using words that lawyers could then claim were admissions of blame because of they way they were used in the legislation.

The whole "where there's a collision there must be someone to blame" thing is something I will always object to. Safety Engineering science proposes the so-called swiss cheese model in which aspects like individual behaviour, system performance, environmental factors and organisational factors are visualised as layers of swiss cheese. Normal varience in each result in hazards that are represented by holes in the relevant layers, and the normal consequence is that a hole in one layer is obscured by solid in another (ie a hazard in one aspect is adequately mitigated in another layer). But there is a finite probability that holes in all the layers will align so that there is a hole right through the stack - that's when adequately mitigated hazards combine to produce an accident. Claims like "there is always someone to blame", even where they allow it to be apportioned between both parties, completely ignore the environmental and organisational aspects (to name but two).

Quote:

That's certainly the impression I got from sitting the driving theory test about 20 years ago.


I passed my test 41 years ago - we didn't have a driving theory test (just some questions on the correct nutrition for horses :0) ), but I've mentored my daughters through theirs and I don't have a lot of time for the concepts they expound. They also teach that the increased probability of killing a child when hit by a car at 40mph compared to 30mph is due to the kinetic energy being 78% higher, which is arrant nonsense*.

Quote:

There were plenty of questions like "Someone is driving down an icy road, skids on the ice, and hits another car. What caused this incident?" You were then given 4 options to choose from, which always included the answer "It was just an accident". This was always the wrong answer and you were instructed to pick an answer along the lines of "The accident was caused by the driver not taking sufficient care and attention under the conditions" if you wanted to pass the test.


This may represent the cognetive bias (or personal agenda) of the quyestion setters, but it doesn't make it true!

Quote:
Even if the CPS determine that a crime has not been committed (which I would imagine is the case in a large number (if not the majority) of incidents), someone can still be to blame.


Can be, perhaps, but it isn't an inherent imutable characteristic of accidents or collisions. I know you didn't claim it was, but you seem to be of the view that it will be the majority case - I'm not sure I accept that it would. I don't know where we might find data to support one or the other, so it's probably just a matter of opinion. But I will always argue against it because I generally tend towards the cock-up theory of existence rather than the conspiricy theory of existance.

PDR

* It's observably nonsense because the numbers don't match up - the survival rate goes from 80% at 30mph to 20% at 40mph, and that doesn't relate to those numbers. It also seems to assume that all the kinetic energy of the car is transfered into the child in the impact, which patently isn't true because the car doesn't stop. The Road Research Lab gave a much more credible explanation when they pointed out that when response times and braking performance were analysed they found that a child hit at 30mph would be thrown forwards by a certain range of distances, and that the car had a 80% chance of then stopping before covering that distance. But at 40mph the car only had a 20% chance of stopping in that distance - in 80% of scenarios the car would actually run over the child before stopping and that's what caused the deaths.

 
barbados
1342319.  Tue Feb 11, 2020 8:19 am Reply with quote

I have to say, Iím really struggling to think of an example of a collision between two (controlled) things where one of them isnít responsible for the collision.

 
PDR
1342320.  Tue Feb 11, 2020 8:44 am Reply with quote

These have all happend either to me or people I know in the last 5 years:

Person gets pushed off a busy pavement. Car which is 3 feet away swerves to avoid pushed pedestrian, collides with car coming the other way.

Car driving down a country lane. A deer leaps over a hedge into the path of the car. Driver swerves into on-coming traffic to avoid deer.

Car driving down a normal road at 30mph when the engine shuts down (subsequently established to be a software fault in the ECU). All power is removed, including the power steering. While trying to stop the driver found that she physically couldn't turn the wheel during the final 10mph of the deceleration, so was unable to straighten up after the right bend, and so the car drifted into the other side of the road to hit on-coming traffic.

Car swerves to avoid falling tree, hits oncoming traffic.

Car driving down a country lane at 25mph. A pig trots into the road 10 feet in front of it. Car hits pig with left front wing and is deflected into on-coming traffic.

etc etc

PDR

 
crissdee
1342322.  Tue Feb 11, 2020 9:11 am Reply with quote

I can add;

Car travelling at less than 10mph, moronic pedestrian wanders out in front of car while looking at phone, car swerves to avoid moron, mounts kerb, hits cast iron bollard.

 
PDR
1342323.  Tue Feb 11, 2020 9:23 am Reply with quote

Clearly the bollard was to blame, obvs...

PDR

 
barbados
1342324.  Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:10 am Reply with quote

With the exception of the total failure.......
If only there was a pedal you could use that stopped the vehicle rather than a wheel used to attempt to avoid something

 
PDR
1342325.  Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:02 am Reply with quote

The point is that if someone or something ten feet away from your car falls/steps/jumps into the road no amount of either pedal will have any mitigating effect.

Thus it becomes a blameless collision.

PDR

 
barbados
1342326.  Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:37 am Reply with quote

1) driving position in the road
2) hazard awareness

 
PDR
1342327.  Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:00 pm Reply with quote

So anywhere that has a public pavement you will always be driving at under 10mph? On any road in rural surrey (where deer leaping out of the surrounding area are quite common) you would also drive at under 10mph? Any road with a tree nearby you would also drive at 10mph?

Frankly I don't believe you. Please stop this self-important judgemental nonsense.

PDR

 
barbados
1342328.  Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:05 pm Reply with quote

Who said anything about driving slowly?
You drive to the conditions of the road, and if there are people on the pavement, you need to be aware of them. When driving past a loose pig (something I have done once) you make allowances for that fact the pig doesnít know what a car is, and is likely to react erratically, same as you would with a deer or a horse.

 
PDR
1342331.  Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:18 pm Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
Who said anything about driving slowly?
You drive to the conditions of the road, and if there are people on the pavement, you need to be aware of them. When driving past a loose pig (something I have done once) you make allowances for that fact the pig doesnít know what a car is, and is likely to react erratically, same as you would with a deer or a horse.


In order to be able to stop within 10 feet you must be doing less that 10mph. Thus to be able to use a break pedal to evade the unseeable hazard you must be doing less than that speed. The pig appeared through a hedge on the edge of the road. The deer jumped over a hedge into the middle of the road. The person was pushed off the pavement due to a brawl inside a roadside pub spilling out onto the street. None of these could been seen before they appeared on the road, so nothing short of clairvoyance could evade them at any greater speed. Ergo either you're wrong, or your claiming to only drive at under 10mph on all non-dual carriageway roads. which is it?

Come on now - reserve the fake facts for the brexit threads!

PDR

 
barbados
1342333.  Tue Feb 11, 2020 1:26 pm Reply with quote

So, for example, what you are saying that nobody was responsible for that person in the road?

 
PDR
1342336.  Tue Feb 11, 2020 4:01 pm Reply with quote

In english?

PDR

 
barbados
1342337.  Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:00 pm Reply with quote

Do you think that no one was responsible for the incident that involved the person falling in front of the car?

 

Page 3 of 7
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group