Who is liable?

Cornucopia

AdrianC wrote: »

<slowly>
If we're assuming 100m of clear visibility...

Oh okay, there's your problem.... the 100m is an assumption.

Working the figures back the other way, for the other party to have been doing 20mph, the distance covered in 3s would be 27m. So, either the OP didn't see a car 27m away, OR it was going faster than 20mph, OR there was an obstruction within 27m of the OP's position.

I think that's probably as far as the maths will take us.

DTDfanBoy

Strider590 wrote: »

Your not accounting for BMW driver arrogance in that equation

I think the bigger problem is that AdrianC hasn't accounted for the BMW factory fitted Klingon approved cloaking device which clearly played a role in this incident :cool:

Cornucopia

AdrianC wrote: »

To have somebody hug them and tell them it's not their fault.

Okay. I think I've done that to the extent that it's feasible based on limited information.

Their insurer's the only one who can do that with any actual effect, though, and even if we ignore the hug, that's unlikely to happen.

Yes, I agree, and I did say so on Page 1. However others chose to continue to chastise the OP, and here we are.

Cornucopia

DTDfanBoy wrote: »

I think the bigger problem is that AdrianC hasn't accounted for the BMW factory fitted Klingon approved cloaking device which clearly played a role in this incident :cool:

I'm wondering more about the BMW approved Apple Distraction Device that may have a played a role.

AdrianC

Cornucopia wrote: »

Oh okay, there's your problem.... the 100m is an assumption.

Yes, it is. It's a figure that I took from you, in post 57 in the thread.

Cornucopia

Astronaughtwannabe wrote: »

So given that an absolute minimum realistic reaction time is 1.5 seconds for a simple incident and skid to stop from 30 mph on a typical dry road is also around 1.5 seconds (IIRC) then your 2 seconds just put you in the same position as the OP. I'll post the simple maths for your pontification if you wish and the reaction time is from a widely accepted research (citation to follow on that as well if you want?)

So, what's the relevance of this?

The HC suggests a stopping distance of 12m at 20mph. In other words, there's no way they couldn't have stopped within our 27m, if they had seen the OP's car move immediately after the OP's observation, even if it had swung violently and recklessly into the road.

Cornucopia

AdrianC wrote: »

Yes, it is. It's a figure that I took from you, in post 57 in the thread.

That was before I played with the numbers.

It's been interesting to apply the physics to a real world problem.

Astronaughtwannabe

AdrianC wrote: »

If that's based on your own reactions, then you may wish to hand your driving licence...

The HC thinking distance - the time to react - is based on less than half that time, 0.7 seconds. That's pessimistic.

Then you like many others grossly overestimate your true reaction time. I've more chance of keeping my licence apparently.

OnanTheBarbarian

Well this thread has turned into an exceptional p1ssing contest hasn't it :rotfl:

Astronaughtwannabe

Cornucopia wrote: »

So, what's the relevance of this?

The HC suggests a stopping distance of 12m at 20mph. In other words, there's no way they couldn't have stopped within our 27m, if they had seen the OP's car move immediately after the OP's observation, even if it had swung violently and recklessly into the road.

The Highway Code is known to be wrong...'twas since at least R v Chadwick went to court in 1974 but there's no doubts many other reasons why you shouldn't rely on it. In fairness though, it says something like 'minimum stopping distances'.


Basically, 1ft per mph was just for ease of reckoning and nobody seems to know much about how they arrived at the braking distances. I spose they are broadly a reasonable guess when you consider that braking to stop is inversely square to your speed but friction is dynamic so that's not strictly true either.

Anyway, as one poster so succinctly but accurately put it "he was potted" so who really cares.