Car accident on mini roundabout

cdrgold

Premier wrote: »

As previously mentioned, at 30mph the other car which was 140 feet away according to you had only 3 seconds to impact.

If, as you and your witness allege, the other car was going at 50mph, that time to impact would have been reduced to 2 seconds. Infact, with a minimum overall stopping distance of 175 feet when travelling at 50mph, impact would have been almost unavoidable based on what you have said.

If there was evidence to suggest the other driver was driving without due care or worse, then the police would have acted.
Fortunately for you, they didn't see reason to question your driving either, hence why I feel a 50/50 outcome is probable.

the whole 3-4 seconds was the time it took from when i saw the car (i was already on the roundabout at this point) to them hitting me. I need to revisit the scene and just see how far they actually were. when i saw them i remember them being inline with the driveway to a house so i will work out the distance then. I feel they had plenty of time to slow down and take the roundabout properly

cdrgold

wxmlad wrote: »

why on earth would he do that?

i take it as the police were called he/yourself weren't drunk and all documents were in order?

out of curiosity what cars were you both driving?

Because he was in a hurry?

He had 3 friends in his car so im guessing he was distracted by them.

His was a auldi A3 (51) i think it was and i have a little fiesta (53)

goldspanners

cdrgold wrote: »

I feel they had plenty of time to slow down and take the roundabout properly

he probably felt you should have gave way to the right, or got out in front of him much much quicker.

Premier_2

cdrgold wrote: »

the whole 3-4 seconds was the time it took from when i saw the car (i was already on the roundabout at this point) ...

Read again your OP.

cdrgold wrote: »

The other night i was approaching a T junction mini roundabout. I was coming up the T looking to join the main road. As i approached i checked to see if there was anything approaching from the right. There was a car coming from the right but he was about 140ft away. ...

You are not now changing your story and suggesting you pulled out onto a roundabout without first checking what was coming from your right are you?

How big was this mini-roundabout and what were you driving? A milk float?
I can clear most mini-roundabouts from a standing start within about 4 seconds.

Premier_2

wxmlad wrote: »

why on earth would he do that?...

cdrgold wrote: »

Because he was in a hurry? ...

Surely if he was in a hurry, he would try to avoid you.
By hitting you, he would have to stop and even for minor collisions that's going to kill a good 10-15 minutes.
In a major one where the police are involved, I guess you were all held up for well in excess of half an hour.

dacouch

Oh dear, 3 friends in the car, there is a good chance of injury claims coming your way then

Happychappy

Sorry to be an anorak, but I’m totally at a loss to even try and see it from your point of view, the collision occurred on the roundabout, you say you had a poor view and pulled out directly into the path of another car which was around 140 feet away, and which was clearly unable to stop, but you feel this is not down to your misjudgement. What else is left to discuss.

You did however realise something was amiss when you had another look and realised the car was travelling much faster? which might well be your distorted perception, when in actual fact it was a lot closer and not travelling at anything like the speed of 50mph.. Have you any photo’s of the damage caused by a 50mph impact? it will be substantial to say the least.

Just as an aside, a vehicle travelling at 50mph will cover 104 feet in 1.4 seconds and will leave 111 feet of skid mark to stop on a reasonable conditioned asphalt surface with a reasonable drag factor, just a generalisation. I would imagine you have photo’s of the lengthy skid mark or the horrendous damage caused in a 50 or possible 40mph impact, assuming you were moving at possibly 10mph?

There are interesting areas of Perception/Reaction Distance

Skid mark distances do not include perception-reaction time distances. This is the distance a vehicle will travel during the time period a hazard first becomes visible to a driver and the driver takes action, such as stepping on the brake pedal, to avoid the hazard. This in the trade is what we refer to as perception-reaction time which is generally around 1.4 seconds for a nominal hazard, with an alert driver, ummm could be a problem on this count ?

You can see as a generalisation of the distances a car will travel while one driver figures out “what the bloody hell that other driver is doing ; )”

At 30 mph, a car will travel 61.57 feet in 1.4 seconds.
At 40 mph, a car will travel 82.09 feet in 1.4 seconds.
At 50 mph, a car will travel 102.62 feet in 1.4 seconds
At 60 mph, a car will travel 123.14 feet in 1.4 seconds.

The total stopping distance, which includes the perception-reaction travel distance, and the skid distance, is found by adding the applicable perception-reaction distance and the applicable skid distance, as my friendly little Meerkat would say “Simples” oh, if the alleged offending vehicle has ABS brakes on all four wheels, you can deduct 10%

So as an example at 50mph, a car skids to a halt leaving 111 feet of visible skid marks, assuming again the reasonable condition of the road surface and assuming it is asphalt and assuming the speed of the car at the onset of the skid was 50 mph, with an “average” driver reaction time of 1.4 seconds before brakes applied, the vehicle would have travelled 102.62 feet, oh my god, getting very close, adding the 102.62 and the 111 feet of visible skid reveals the alleged offending driver first saw the hazard when the car was 213.62 feet from the hazard, uummm we may have a problem with the 140 feet of view, therefore the impact speed would be very high, so possibly your photo’s of damage and the body count would be of interest and If I had attended the scene I think a case of dangerous driving or death by dangerous would be high on the list, but clearly this does not appear to be the case in this collision. good thing out of this is you were'nt hurt, so a small blessing and good luck.

cdrgold

Premier wrote: »

Surely if he was in a hurry, he would try to avoid you.
By hitting you, he would have to stop and even for minor collisions that's going to kill a good 10-15 minutes.
In a major one where the police are involved, I guess you were all held up for well in excess of half an hour.

was there for like an hour

cdrgold

Happychappy wrote: »

Sorry to be an anorak, but I’m totally at a loss to even try and see it from your point of view, the collision occurred on the roundabout, you say you had a poor view and pulled out directly into the path of another car which was around 140 feet away, and which was clearly unable to stop, but you feel this is not down to your misjudgement. What else is left to discuss.

You did however realise something was amiss when you had another look and realised the car was travelling much faster? which might well be your distorted perception, when in actual fact it was a lot closer and not travelling at anything like the speed of 50mph.. Have you any photo’s of the damage caused by a 50mph impact? it will be substantial to say the least.

Just as an aside, a vehicle travelling at 50mph will cover 104 feet in 1.4 seconds and will leave 111 feet of skid mark to stop on a reasonable conditioned asphalt surface with a reasonable drag factor, just a generalisation. I would imagine you have photo’s of the lengthy skid mark or the horrendous damage caused in a 50 or possible 40mph impact, assuming you were moving at possibly 10mph?

There are interesting areas of Perception/Reaction Distance

Skid mark distances do not include perception-reaction time distances. This is the distance a vehicle will travel during the time period a hazard first becomes visible to a driver and the driver takes action, such as stepping on the brake pedal, to avoid the hazard. This in the trade is what we refer to as perception-reaction time which is generally around 1.4 seconds for a nominal hazard, with an alert driver, ummm could be a problem on this count ?

You can see as a generalisation of the distances a car will travel while one driver figures out “what the bloody hell that other driver is doing ; )”

At 30 mph, a car will travel 61.57 feet in 1.4 seconds.
At 40 mph, a car will travel 82.09 feet in 1.4 seconds.
At 50 mph, a car will travel 102.62 feet in 1.4 seconds
At 60 mph, a car will travel 123.14 feet in 1.4 seconds.

The total stopping distance, which includes the perception-reaction travel distance, and the skid distance, is found by adding the applicable perception-reaction distance and the applicable skid distance, as my friendly little Meerkat would say “Simples” oh, if the alleged offending vehicle has ABS brakes on all four wheels, you can deduct 10%

So as an example at 50mph, a car skids to a halt leaving 111 feet of visible skid marks, assuming again the reasonable condition of the road surface and assuming it is asphalt and assuming the speed of the car at the onset of the skid was 50 mph, with an “average” driver reaction time of 1.4 seconds before brakes applied, the vehicle would have travelled 102.62 feet, oh my god, getting very close, adding the 102.62 and the 111 feet of visible skid reveals the alleged offending driver first saw the hazard when the car was 213.62 feet from the hazard, uummm we may have a problem with the 140 feet of view, therefore the impact speed would be very high, so possibly your photo’s of damage and the body count would be of interest and If I had attended the scene I think a case of dangerous driving or death by dangerous would be high on the list, but clearly this does not appear to be the case in this collision. good thing out of this is you were'nt hurt, so a small blessing and good luck.

Well there were no skid marks, the car didnt seem so slow down or change direction in order to navigate around the roundabout. As for the distances they are just what google earth has said, need to actually go down to the scene and see it all for myself.

goldspanners

Happychappy wrote: »

so possibly your photo’s of damage and the body count would be of interest and If I had attended the scene I think a case of dangerous driving or death by dangerous would be high on the list, but clearly this does not appear to be the case in this collision. good thing out of this is you were'nt hurt, so a small blessing and good luck.

he is right, you should have been asking the 999 operator for an ambulance not a police officer.