Aventador Crash - Moment of Impact

dantastic

Jaysys! Flying around at 30 like that!

Marcusm

corktina wrote: »

Yes but that's why you don't fly about at 30 mph in a busy high street full of mazdas, buses cyclists and pedestrians.

They don't use Yield signs in the UK

You're right, almost never used, the double dash line is the equivalent for UK use.

GreeBo

unkel wrote: »

You're thinking of this one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQKlyi_49gA

People talk of physics 101 but yet cant see the difference between a car rolling over after attempting to climb a wall and a car bouncing 4 wheels into the air during a crash?

GreeBo

MarkR wrote: »

How on god's green earth the flying spaghetti monsters's great noodly appendage does that make it 50/50?

because he was travelling too fast to react to someone crawling out from a junction in the middle of the city centre?

GreeBo

ironclaw wrote: »

I figure, and this is complete rough work, the car travels 1m in 4 video frames. So at 30 frames per second, thats 7.5m per second or 27km/h. Remembering that is after they had seen the car pulling out so they would have been braking. 0 to 100km/h in the Aventador is 2.8s, and can brake almost as fast.

So they weren't speeding and could easily have been seen by the Mazda, at least in my opinion.

They could easily have seen the Mazda then as they Mazda would have to pull into the road before they could see.
If all the above is true, why didnt he just stop?
Whats the Lambos 30-0 time/distance?

dantastic

But why is it the Lambo's responsibility to stop? Why can't you afford the Mazda driver the same responsibility? Why was the Mazda not driving too fast? Or did the Mazda have right of way?

corktina

dantastic wrote: »

Jaysys! Flying around at 30 like that!

you don't think 30 mph is too fast in the middle of a busy London street?

jimgoose

unkel wrote: »

You're thinking of this one? ...

I love that video so much. I swear to Cheeses I will never tire of it as long as I shall live. It is beautiful, it is a work of high Art. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!! :pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

K.Flyer

corktina wrote: »

They don't use Yield signs in the UK

Marcusm wrote: »

You're right, almost never used, the double dash line is the equivalent for UK use.

There is a Yield triangle painted on the road that the Mazda pulls out off.
Its clearly visible behind the car at 0.06 seconds.

ironclaw

GreeBo wrote: »

They could easily have seen the Mazda then as they Mazda would have to pull into the road before they could see.
If all the above is true, why didnt he just stop?
Whats the Lambos 30-0 time/distance?

I said, the Mazda could have easily seen them. However, the Mazda should have stopped. The Lambo has right of way. Doesn't matter what is stopping time is really. The onus was not on them to stop.

dantastic

When wheels connect cars fly. Chinese proverb...

corktina

You are supposed to be able to stop in an emergency..he couldn't ergo: too fast for the road conditions.

corktina

K.Flyer wrote: »

There is a Yield triangle painted on the road that the Mazda pulls out off.
Its clearly visible behind the car at 0.06 seconds.

My tongue was firmly in my cheek. They don't use YIELD signs in the UK. They use GIVE WAY

corktina

corktina wrote: »

You are supposed to be able to stop in an emergency..he couldn't ergo: too fast for the road conditions.

But there is no way people would be able to stop in a lot of emergency situations, in my opinion that mazda appeared in front of him and unless he was going completely impractically slow then he couldn't have stopped.

If a person is driving down a straight road at 100km/h and someone drives out in right in front of them would you go around claiming that the person on the main road was driving too fast for as they couldn't stop in an emergency? Its a ridiculous way of thinking.

The mazda is 100% at fault he should not have driven out simple as that.

Its totally different to driving along behind a car etc where you have to judge your speed, stopping distance etc as they are on the same road and in your full view etc.

K.Flyer

corktina wrote: »

My tongue was firmly in my cheek. They don't use YIELD signs in the UK. They use GIVE WAY

I was just about to amend my last post as I remembered that the wording is different (but still has the same meaning )

blingrhino

While 95% agree that the Mazda was at fault - was the fact that a Maserati was "following" him an influence.?

Soarer

blingrhino wrote: »

While 95% agree that the Mazda was at fault - was the fact that a Maserati was "following" him an influence.?

Like he was being chased by a hitman?

MarkR

GreeBo wrote: »

because he was travelling too fast to react to someone crawling out from a junction in the middle of the city centre?

Who says he was too fast? Walking pace is too fast is someone steps out in front of you. There is nothing currently out there to show that the lambo was speeding. The way the car looks, or the noise it makes does not mean it was speeding. In that absence, you're left with the rules of the road. The mazda pulled out in front of the lambo.

BMJD

guttenberg wrote: »

was the Mazda driver the fella in red, who ran to check on the blonde passenger but didn't seem to care about the male driver?

it's a LHD so maybe that's why

or maybe he prefers blondes

Truckermal

I could bet you that if the Lambo was a normal family car everyone would say its the Mazdas fault and that would be the end of it.

dr.fuzzenstein

corktina wrote: »

You are supposed to be able to stop in an emergency..he couldn't ergo: too fast for the road conditions.

But the argument remains:
If the Mazda driver uses that in court, the reply will be "bahahahahaaaa! Guilty! Next!"
As I said before, if I drove out in front of someone and say "Ah Jaysus, he was doin' a fierce shpeed altogether, you should have heard de noise out of him, Gard! Shure 'tis his fault for not looking where he's goin'!" do you think that would wash?
The ROTR state that if the other car has right of way and you pull out, CAUSING an accident, you are at fault, are at fault, are at fault.
You can argue till you're blue in the face and elsewhere, you're at fault and if you argue some more, you're still at fault.

Had the other car not been a Lambo, this thread would not have gone this way. It's pure begrudgery.

WillyFXP

Hmmm...lambo didnt apply brakes until after the impact, this to me says 2 possible things 1. He wasn't watching the road ahead. 2. He was going too fast to react in time for the conditions. I'm not saying there is no fault with the mazda driver, but surely the lambo driver would have had time to apply the brakes before the impact if either of my 2 points weren't valid?

jimgoose

WillyFXP wrote: »

Hmmm...lambo didnt apply brakes until after the impact, this to me says 2 possible things 1. He wasn't watching the road ahead. 2. He was going too fast to react in time for the conditions. I'm not saying there is no fault with the mazda driver, but surely the lambo driver would have had time to apply the brakes before the impact if either of my 2 points weren't valid?

It looked to me like the front-left shock was bottomed and her nose rippling the tarmac well before the actual "hit".

dr.fuzzenstein

corktina wrote: »

You are supposed to be able to stop in an emergency..he couldn't ergo: too fast for the road conditions.

But you can't use that argument in case someone pulls out on you, giving you no chance to stop.
Bollocks.

Stallingrad

Some primo boards twaddle being spouted here.

GreeBo

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

But the argument remains:
If the Mazda driver uses that in court, the reply will be "bahahahahaaaa! Guilty! Next!"
As I said before, if I drove out in front of someone and say "Ah Jaysus, he was doin' a fierce shpeed altogether, you should have heard de noise out of him, Gard! Shure 'tis his fault for not looking where he's goin'!" do you think that would wash?
The ROTR state that if the other car has right of way and you pull out, CAUSING an accident, you are at fault, are at fault, are at fault.
You can argue till you're blue in the face and elsewhere, you're at fault and if you argue some more, you're still at fault.

Had the other car not been a Lambo, this thread would not have gone this way. It's pure begrudgery.

Yeah, you got me. I begrudge some guy i don't know having some car i don't want.
Your court case example does nothing to aid your point btw, just childish.
No one is saying that Mazda is not fault, just that it's not 100% blame.
How can a Lamborghini not stop in time for a car crawling out of a junction? Speeding or lack of attention imo, thus they get some blame.

mad m

4 cars hit in that video...jaysus....would you think they might write off the lambo?

challengemaster

GreeBo wrote: »

Would you deny that a speed whereby you cant stop before a car crawls out in front of you is inappropriate in a city centre location?

That all depends on how far away it is when this happens doesn't it?

GreeBo wrote: »

The point is that the Lambo driver couldnt stop in time. He also did a little more than "clip" the front of a the car. He was airborne and took out 2 other cars. That wouldnt have happened at 30kp/h now would it?

Likewise I'd assume that someone driving a lambo would be observant, like notice the bus obstructing his view, would know the rules of the road, like the speed limit and adhere to the rules of the road, like not speed.

corktina wrote: »

You are supposed to be able to stop in an emergency..he couldn't ergo: too fast for the road conditions.

Again, it comes down to how far away when the car pulled out. Reaction to any situation takes time, doesn't matter how fast you're going. There's being expected to stop in an emergency, and taking the piss with what you're expecting to be possible. You're verging on the latter tbh.

As has been pointed out, airborne doesn't instantly mean speed. It's to do with angle of impact and the subsequent launch-effect caused. It happens in F1, nascar, it's happened in drifting, and it happens in low-speed normal driving collisions.

Also you'd be surprised at how little visibility you have in a lambo. More reason to drive slowly? Maybe. But either way it's reduced reaction time.

AFAIK it's also in the UK motoring legislation that it's an offence to interfere with another persons driving, lets say, by pulling out in front of them.

JerCotter7

corktina wrote: »

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/lamborghini-crash--aventador-west-london-smash-caught-on-camera-123500659.html#v8U5nxh

A different view from the speed kings on here...

He said: 'I got a call to say someone had reported the Lamborghini crash on Sloane Street, and had heard this particular Aventador had been racing all day."

"Minutes before the smash, the matte black motor - with the expensive plate A4AAA - was filmed being driven aggressively by its owner"

That article is terrible. Whoever wrote that should not be allowed write them. Calls it a high speed smash when he has no idea what speed it was and it wasn't a high speed smash either way. Then he captions another image with the car tears into view and that it ploughed into a car. Please say he's not payed to write? I may have another change of career if that's the case.

Also Lambo driver is at fault. I mean if he had just stayed at home that day there would have been no crash so clearly his fault.

WillyFXP

jimgoose wrote: »

It looked to me like the front-left shock was bottomed and her nose rippling the tarmac well before the actual "hit".

But no brake lights?

vibe666

General opinion seems to be that the lambo was doing </> 30mph at the time of the impact, based on most boardsie guesstimates and that of the dude on reddit who did the sums.

So, either he did brake before the impact which would mean he was speeding prior to braking down to 30mph when they made contact, or he didn't brake at all prior to the impact, meaning he either didn't see the Mazda at all, which begs the question of where was he looking, or he thought he could make the gap and went for it, or that he did see it but he's got so much more money than sense that he thought the crash would make a good YouTube video.

If the argument is that he didn't see the Mazda pulling out directly in front him until it was too late for him to brake, how could the Mazda driver be expected to be able see him in his low down matte black stealth car?

One of the comments on the YouTube clip claims that the driver admitted to doing 60mph prior to the accident, but doesn't say where that info came from, so it may or may not be true.

There also seem to be indications that the driver is the son of some ultra rich Arab billionaire who really does have significantly more money than sense and is known for racing around London in his very expensive toy, so take from that what you will, but there seems to be a prevailing opinion here that if a person has the right of way they can drive everywhere right at the speed limit without ever slowing down for anything regardless of the conditions or any obstacles in their way and are responsible at all for anything they hit and I doubt very much whether anything anyone can say will persuade many people here to the contrary.

veetwin

WillyFXP wrote: »

Hmmm...lambo didnt apply brakes until after the impact, this to me says 2 possible things 1. He wasn't watching the road ahead. 2. He was going too fast to react in time for the conditions. I'm not saying there is no fault with the mazda driver, but surely the lambo driver would have had time to apply the brakes before the impact if either of my 2 points weren't valid?

Kind of agree. The Mazda driver is of course at fault but if the Lambo driver was any use the accident could easily have been avoided. Defensive driving would have kept his NCB.

Mycroft H

WillyFXP wrote: »

mmm...lambo didnt apply brakes until after the impact, this to me says 2 possible things 1. He wasn't watching the road ahead. 2. He was going too fast to react in time for the conditions. I'm not saying there is no fault with the mazda driver, but surely the lambo driver would have had time to apply the brakes before the impact if either of my 2 points weren't valid?

Your dead right I think. There is blame to be apportioned on both sides, how much to each driver is beyond me.

One was going a bit fast for a congested city centre and the other pulled out without due care.

Oh and its laughable that people are claiming that the lambo driver is beyond reproach, you've to drive at a speed that you can stop in the distance you can see clear. "Tis in the buke lads"


The journal.ie is reporting that there is 120k worth of damage, which is **** all in the scheme of things. I know of medical expence and fire service bills higher than that as a result of car accidents with less exotic motors.

challengemaster

vibe666 wrote: »

If the argument is that he didn't see the Mazda pulling out directly in front him until it was too late for him to brake, how could the Mazda driver be expected to be able see him in his low down matte black stealth car?

Right so because someone is driving a black car, it's ok to pull out in front of them because you can't be expected to see it. I've never seen such drivel. It's up to the driver pulling out to ensure it's safe to do so. It wasn't.

The lambo driver had a bus obstructing his view of the mazda, and more than likely his A pillar too.

/edit:

The journal.ie is reporting that there is 120k worth of damage, which is **** all in the scheme of things. I know of medical expence and fire service bills higher than that as a result of car accidents with less exotic motors.

That's 120k in damage just to the lambo. Not including any other claims

Red Nissan

Kenny Logins wrote: »

Is that the official verdict?

As resident judge and magistrate, it bleedin well is. Now be off wit you questioning the court, I'll see you in the stocks and Lambo drivers can throw rotten fruit at ye.

vibe666

I was actually in a near miss last summer when driving up the N11 on a busy Sunday afternoon and some clown pulled out of a side road and the car in front came to a complete stop right in front of me.

I stopped in time and pulled to the side of him so that my wife driving behind me didn't hit me and decided to give him an earful for stopping in the middle of a busy main road.

I got universal support from pretty much everyone here saying I did nothing at all wrong and I was well within my rights to give out, but opinions on both YouTube and other sites that the video ended up on were decidedly mixed and a lot of people were of the opinion that the guy who slammed on the anchors to let the other guy all the way out (he was sitting on chevrons in the middle of the road) was perfectly justified in doing so and it was up to me to be able to stop in any situation regardless.

It obviously wasn't under the same circumstances, but my point is that opinions here versus those of the general population can be very different.

Mycroft H

Mycroft H wrote: »

you've to drive at a speed that you can stop in the distance you can see clear. "Tis in the buke lads"

This is an impossible task, there is no way you can drive down any road at any reasonable speed and say that you will be able to stop no matter what happens.

Do you slow to a standstill everytime you see someone coming out from a side road or do you expect that they will have the cop on not to drive out in front of you?

veetwin wrote: »

Defensive driving would have kept his NCB.

He will be keeping his NCB, its the mazda driver thats going to be paying for his error.

fullstop

heroics wrote: »

Completely the Mazdas fault. Pulled right out in front of the lambo. Cant understand how anybody can think differently. Even if the lambo had been doing 100mph the mazda still drove straight out in front of it. If you cant judge the speed of oncoming traffic you shouldn't be driving.

This is absolute nonsense. So if I drive around a city at 100mph, someone pulls out from a side street and I smash into them, they're at fault? As others have pointed out, this is why built up areas have reduced speed limits, reduced visibility due to parked cars etc. If the lambo wasn't speeding there would have been no accident. If the other videos on the daily mail link are him, he usually drives like a tool anyway.

seamus

fullstop wrote: »

This is absolute nonsense. So if I drive around a city at 100mph, someone pulls out from a side street and I smash into them, they're at fault?

That's a straw man. The guy wasn't driving at 100mph.

Mycroft H

Legend Ugly Passport wrote: »

Do you slow to a standstill everytime you see someone coming out from a side road or do you expect that they will have the cop on not to drive out in front of you?

Look if I'm in a congested city environment with a restricted view and the possibility of pedestrains, cyclists or other vehicles to cross my path is high, I'll be driving as any other defensive driver will be; slow enough to react. If that means plodding along in 2nd gear till the view is clear, than so be it.

fullstop

seamus wrote: »

That's a straw man. The guy wasn't driving at 100mph.

Well he was driving too fast. Did you read the post I replied to? He said 100mph, so I didn't pluck the figure out of my arse.

I'm not saying the Lambo is at fault, my first reaction was that the Mazda was, but the noise of the Lambo coming suggests he wasn't just cruising along at 30mph. We also don't know how the visibility was.

challengemaster

fullstop wrote: »

but the noise of the Lambo coming suggests he wasn't just cruising along at 30mph.

Until you take into account that it's a lambo, and they sound like thunder 99% of the time, regardless of speed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5dOtNSjuH0

dantastic

challengemaster wrote: »

Until you take into account that it's a lambo, and they sound like thunder 99% of the time, regardless of speed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5dOtNSjuH0

That sounded very fast. What if the kids were cycling or playing with a ball?

veetwin

Legend Ugly Passport wrote: »

He will be keeping his NCB, its the mazda driver thats going to be paying for his error.

Well if you're going to be pedantic it's the Mazda driver's insurance that will be paying.

dr.fuzzenstein

fullstop wrote: »

This is absolute nonsense. So if I drive around a city at 100mph, someone pulls out from a side street and I smash into them, they're at fault? As others have pointed out, this is why built up areas have reduced speed limits, reduced visibility due to parked cars etc. If the lambo wasn't speeding there would have been no accident. If the other videos on the daily mail link are him, he usually drives like a tool anyway.

OK, proof that Lambo was speeding besides "Jaysus, that look fierrce fasht!"?

And I am repeating myself a third time, yes, if you come from a sidestreet and you see another car with right of way and pull out in front of him YOU ARE AT FAULT FOR CAUSING AN ACCIDENT.
I'm glad I could clear that up for you, you're welcome...

veetwin

veetwin wrote: »

Well if you're going to be pedantic it's the Mazda driver's insurance that will be paying.

He will be paying increased premiums though.

vibe666

challengemaster wrote: »

Right so because someone is driving a black car, it's ok to pull out in front of them because you can't be expected to see it. I've never seen such drivel. It's up to the driver pulling out to ensure it's safe to do so. It wasn't.

The lambo driver had a bus obstructing his view of the mazda, and more than likely his A pillar too.

now that is PROPER drivel!

You excuse the lambo for not seeing the Mazda pulling out slowly with his indicator on, yet in the very same breath you say that the Mazda expected to be able to see the matte black (and therefore less visible) lambo with no lights on that is almost literally half the height of the Mazda and would be obscured by pretty much every other car on the road, or at the side of the road?

You do realise that you are defending the lambo using exact same excuse that you using to blame the Mazda?

Have you considered a career in politics at all, you'd be very good at spin doctoring.

challengemaster

vibe666 wrote: »

now that is PROPER drivel!

You excuse the lambo for not seeing the Mazda pulling out slowly with his indicator on, yet in the very same breath you say that the Mazda expected to be able to see the matte black (and therefore less visible) lambo with no lights on that is almost literally half the height of the Mazda and would be obscured by pretty much every other car on the road, or at the side of the road?

You do realise that you are defending the lambo using exact same excuse that you using to blame the Mazda?

Have you considered a career in politics at all, you'd be very good at spin doctoring.

You seem to be suffering from selective blindness. Let me re-iterate, you might see it this time.

It's up to the driver pulling out to ensure it's safe to do so. It wasn't.

vibe666

vibe666 wrote: »

now that is PROPER drivel!

You excuse the lambo for not seeing the Mazda pulling out slowly with his indicator on, yet in the very same breath you say that the Mazda expected to be able to see the matte black (and therefore less visible) lambo with no lights on that is almost literally half the height of the Mazda and would be obscured by pretty much every other car on the road, or at the side of the road?

You do realise that you are defending the lambo using exact same excuse that you using to blame the Mazda?

Have you considered a career in politics at all, you'd be very good at spin doctoring.

All that really matters is that the lambo had right of way and the mazda did not. It was the mazdas job to ensure the way was clear before pulling out.

He also pulled right out in front of him I don't see where this slow pulling out giving time to the lambo to react is coming from. He pulled right into his path.

dr.fuzzenstein

Also, you can hear the Lambo very clearly in the video and the Mazda pulled out less than 2 seconds before the Lambo was where he was.
That means Lambo man had less than 2 seconds to react, hit the brake and bring the car to a complete standstill.
ANYONE arguing that we should drive at a speed that if someone pulls out less than 20 meters ahead of us, we should come to a complete standstill and never hit them under any circumstances, is talking nonsense.

But OK, here's my argument:
So, we should drive at all times at such a speed that we can stop in any situation and never hit anyone, ever, we must then also conclude that someone could jump in front of our car in the middle of a motorway, perhaps they ran out from the side, or they waited on top of an overpass and jumped directly in front of a car.
That means we should be able to stop safely with (let's be generous here) 2 meters at ANY time.
So, national speed limit of 5 km/h, here we come! because you never know when the entire crew of the Enterprise will beam down directly in front of your vehicle.
Since this will save hundreds of lives a year, any counter argument is invalid.