Citroen C1, Peugeot 107, 108 & Toyota Aygo Owners Club. (Discount code for CityBugStore: C1OC)

It is currently Sat Dec 15, 2018 5:28 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The blame game.
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2016 10:36 am
Posts: 8
Drives: Peugeot 107 2009
Hi chaps. It's interesting to read your considered comments. Interesting because it clearly shows that looking at the video gives a completely distorted view of events. It also seems to bring out the armchair detective in people. Suddenly, without any other relevant knowledge of the geography or the angle of the road, the distance and speed of the vehicles involved are crystal clear as if the viewer was actually there. One of you actually seemed to belive that there wa sa 'ruddy great hedge' there. I can tell you that there isn't. Its a relatively low bunch of twigs( low for a tractor, I know I've been in one on that bend).

-There also seems to be an assumption regarding excessive speed. It was less than 20mph, with which the insurers concur. Speed was NOT a contributary factor they say.
-Caution was most certainly excercised, it is not a blind bend as has been assumed, the camera wide angle makes it appear so.
-It is NOT a narrow single track lane, it is 22'+ wide.
-The tractor was NOT more to the left of the road, he was well over to the right. There are photographs to prove this.

@enjay, the 'attitude' of the video posters description is entirely accurate. The tractor driver is a well known local asshole, a p1sshead and gerneral tw@t.

-The possibility of there being a boulder around the bend or an animal? Indeed, but then it wouldn't be moving toward you at speed would it?
- Your 'magical curtain' hypothosis makes sense and I would agree with not speeding through it at 60mph. However, it doesn't in any way reflect the situation here or anything that would ever happen. I also like your contradiction to your own advice when you say "If you're on a straight road, with clear sides and a good view ahead, then crack on at 60 or whatever the speed limit is". What if the unexpected happened, such as an animal jumping into the road or someone emerging from a junction that you didn't know was there?

-@wee mac. He didn't need to take the 'centre line' to make the bend, it's a right hand bend for him, so how does your theory make any sense?

-@daviemck2006. I wouldn't bother to pursue your training. You (and your judgemental assumptions which I can happily 'question' thank you) are clearly not equipped for the job.

Thanks all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The blame game.
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:09 pm 
Offline
Full Member

Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:17 pm
Posts: 26
Location: Leicester
Drives: 14 Plate Peugeot 107
Hmmm. Someone seems upset they didn't get the backing they were hoping for, with everyone giving ample and reasonable explanations of their thoughts. And seemingly intentional misunderstanding of what has been said because it doesn't match what their personal opinion/thoughts were. You asked for thoughts/opinions. Everyone gave theirs, with backing for their opinions, and you're denouncing everyone's opinions because they don't match yours.

From what I've read there hasn't been any 'assumption' about excessive speed. You clearly think that automatically means tearing along at a ridiculously fast pace. That's not the case. As has been explained, if you cannot stop in the distance you see to be clear -any- speed that prevents a full stop in visible safe space is classed as excessive. Being less than 20mph doesn't mean it wasn't excessive if you can't stop in the distance you see. From the video there seems to be a delay in actually stopping. Car seems to slow, but still carries on without fully stopping until collision when it appears it could have fully stopped (looks like it was trying to squeeze through). That's how it looks to me (and from other comments, others too). whether you agree or not doesn't change the fact that it appears that way to others. From doing an emergency stop because of other tw*ts on the road personally it doesn't look like a full stop was tried then given the lack of apparent urgency in actually stopping when it was seen the driver of the tractor wasn't slowing as fast as wanted. (I of course could be wrong, since I wasn't there I don't know for sure what happened - only you do, - so again this is assumption/opinion based on my experience and what can be seen in the video).

Hedge -would- be in the way from watching video (in my opinion), how long is however debatable. Regardless of distortion, which would also affect the tractor cab, the hedge is at the same height as the cab, obscuring vision. You can't see the tractor until end of 1st second, and cab isn't visible for another half second. If you can't see cab, chances are he can't see you.

Tractor driver does appear to be a bit far over, but there could be numerous reasons for it. Towing a trailer means his line won't be as far over as cars (same with buses/ lorries/etc). They need more room to account for the trailer, regardless of direction of corner such vehicles would be more towards middle of road, as tractor was, to make a smoother turn with trailer.

You're angrily citing photos proving how far over tractor was, but didn't provide them. We can only go by appearances from the video - distorted or otherwise. Don't get pissy because you are basing your opinions on other evidence you've not shown everyone else. (This also includes 'local knowledge' of the tractor driver being an arse.)

You didn't get the thoughts you wanted - deal with it. No reason to start getting arsey because others disagreed with your opinion/view on the matter when you have more evidence than anyone here has been provided with by yourself.

_________________
***
"You're so far past the line, You've gone past the Medusa Cascade, through Narnia and landed smack bang in the middle of Mordor." - Me

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The blame game.
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2016 10:36 am
Posts: 8
Drives: Peugeot 107 2009
Quite a lot of masked sniping in your post there. ( eg "looks like he was trying to squeeze through"). LESS than 20mph, is not 20mph and allows for a perfectly reasonable view around this bend. However it doesn't allow for the forward speed of an oncoming vehicle. Neither the law, the Highway Code nor common sense argues with this. You could be driving at 5 mph around a bend, when a vehicle doing 70mph comes the other way. A combined speed of 75mph, yet the line of vision dictates that 5mph is safe. Doesn't work does it?

I have no problem with peoples opinions and just so you know, I purposely provided only the video because I wanted to gauge peoples opinion based on what they saw. This seemed to be the insursers sole point of reference, despite there being other evidence ( which they seemed to largely ignore) including a character statement of the tractor driver provided by a local serving Police officer who is sadly familiar with his driving.

Now I know that, despite my knowing the facts, any third party onlooker sees something else.

Unfortunately, like I said, there was also a lot of armchair detective work going on which wasn't asked for, but some people just love to spout their 'knowledge' or their alledged credentials for spouting it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The blame game.
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 10:03 pm 
Offline
Full Member

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 3:25 pm
Posts: 236
Location: Aberdeen...
Drives: 107 Urban '09
All I will say is that you are complaining about armchair detectives yet you asked who was at fault. I posted my honest opinion based on the only resource that we were given, a short video, and you've mocked my post. You complain of sniping yet no issue dealing it out. I don't really understand your motive here; you just venting?

_________________
107 '09 Urban


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The blame game.
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 10:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2016 10:36 am
Posts: 8
Drives: Peugeot 107 2009
Armchair detectives - going beyond what they observe and adding asumptions as fact.
I didn't mock your post, but it is an example of the above.
Not venting, just gauging opinion, as already explained.

It has been useful, it doesn't matter why. Thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The blame game.
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 10:25 pm 
Offline
Full Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:55 am
Posts: 1606
Location: S East
Drives: was VTR 2009
timbob - you asked ‘who was at fault?’ inviting opinion, then get snippy when that opinion doesn’t agree with yours. The thread went sour, imo, when you started on posters that disagreed with your view that the tractor driver was at fault.

Welcome to the internet, it’s all like this; quite often much worse.

This is a nice site with nice members, don’t spoil it please.

My opinion, since you asked for it, is that it’s nowt to do with us. It’s between you, the guy driving the tractor, and your insurer.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The blame game.
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 10:36 pm 
Offline
Full Member

Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:17 pm
Posts: 26
Location: Leicester
Drives: 14 Plate Peugeot 107
timbob wrote:
Quite a lot of masked sniping in your post there. ( eg "looks like he was trying to squeeze through"). LESS than 20mph, is not 20mph and allows for a perfectly reasonable view around this bend. However it doesn't allow for the forward speed of an oncoming vehicle. Neither the law, the Highway Code nor common sense argues with this. You could be driving at 5 mph around a bend, when a vehicle doing 70mph comes the other way. A combined speed of 75mph, yet the line of vision dictates that 5mph is safe. Doesn't work does it?

I have no problem with peoples opinions and just so you know, I purposely provided only the video because I wanted to gauge peoples opinion based on what they saw. This seemed to be the insursers sole point of reference, despite there being other evidence ( which they seemed to largely ignore) including a character statement of the tractor driver provided by a local serving Police officer who is sadly familiar with his driving.

Now I know that, despite my knowing the facts, any third party onlooker sees something else.

Unfortunately, like I said, there was also a lot of armchair detective work going on which wasn't asked for, but some people just love to spout their 'knowledge' or their alledged credentials for spouting it.


No masked sniping at all. It does look like trying to squeeze through, though can't say it was the intention, hence the 'looks like' to allow for misinterpretation, instead of saying something like 'he was definitely trying to squeeze through'.

If you don't have a problem, why have you been so hostile over it? (even taking with a pinch of salt, as I realise text only communication lacks finesse and context a lot of the time) If you only wanted feedback based on the video, there is zero point arguing based on photos/other evidence later like you've done. Mention other evidence shows other information, and move on. Don't attack views you asked for, using other evidence as your backing (like you did) if you were intentionally withholding other evidence.

Third parties -will- see something else when you've withheld other evidence to support your side. Insurers choosing to ignore other provided evidence is not the same as withholding some evidence to peers/ other people in a casual context, then arguing a different result that needed the other evidence to give the full picture. 'Armchair detective' work is always going to happen if you ask for opinions based on something, since that's how people reach their thoughts/verdicts/answers. Even if the reasoning hadn't been provided, the end answers would likely have been the same, and you would likely have then asked for the reasons (since you've refused to accept what the opinions you asked for were without arguing the points explaining why they were what they were). Even if the reasons hadn't been provided, that armchair detective work would still have happened for people to get their answers given. Armchair detective can also apply to any logical/lateral thinking when trying to work out information from data, not just the negative connotation of stating assumptions as fact. Also, a lot of the 'stating assumptions as fact' is down to you applying local knowledge we don't have, and the evidence you've said you intentionally withheld, so no one intentionally stated assumptions as fact - they stated what they could see as fact, as fact, not knowing it was an assumption (ironically I have to state I'm assuming this to be the case xD)

Quote:
LESS than 20mph, is not 20mph

never said it was.
Quote:
and allows for a perfectly reasonable view around this bend

If you know the bend, yes. But you asked for feedback based on the camera view, which means it isn't as clear as you are now saying based on the evidence you actually provided, so all points made about lack of visibility/ appropriate speed for visibility are perfectly valid, despite your arguing against it, given the evidence you gave.

Quote:
However it doesn't allow for the forward speed of an oncoming vehicle. Neither the law, the Highway Code nor common sense argues with this.

And noone here argued with that either.
Quote:
You could be driving at 5 mph around a bend, when a vehicle doing 70mph comes the other way. A combined speed of 75mph, yet the line of vision dictates that 5mph is safe. Doesn't work does it?

Yes it does. Point being made was the distance -you- can stop safely. If oncoming vehicles can't stop, that is because they haven't gone at an appropriate speed. Doesn't affect your choosing to drive at an appropriate speed or not.

And relating this to the video, you were still moving forwards at point of impact, meaning you hadn't been able to stop in distance you could see to be clear. Your argument (from your replies to other posts) is the tractor -must- have seen you. You don't know exactly what they saw or not, you are only assuming (Same as I'm assuming the hedge that's as tall as tractor, preventing tractor being seen from car earlier may have stopped tractor seeing car earlier). You couldn't see him until it was too late, so more than likely he didn't see you until it was too late for him to stop as well. He might have been distracted/etc (it doesn't defend him, only pointing out that other factors can apply as to them definitely seeing you or not, since you've implied they saw you and intentionally carried on and hit you/failed to try and slow, when they maybe didn't actually see you in time).

_________________
***
"You're so far past the line, You've gone past the Medusa Cascade, through Narnia and landed smack bang in the middle of Mordor." - Me

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The blame game.
PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 4:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 3:02 pm
Posts: 728
Location: macduff
Drives: 107 sportium 2012
Timbob, all I will say is You asked for opinions based on the video and nothing else. I for 1 have made no judgements on anyone. Once you got opinions, which was not what you wanted to hear then you got uptight and came away with lots of other shit. And in the video, it does look like you braked then let off the brake as if you were going to squeeze through then hit the tractor. Anyway I'm not arguing, I said what I saw. The one thing you have not told us is what did the police say if you called them, and what did your insurance say?

_________________
[color=#FF0000]Davie aka portsoypug

2012 107 sportium x2, black and white
1998 xantia 1.9td veg burner
1993 pug205 1.6 auto


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The blame game.
PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:55 pm 
Offline
Area Rep
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:31 pm
Posts: 4494
Location: Motherwell
Drives: Citroën C1
Timbob, give it peace, this topic is now just for the sake of argument now with no clear outcome

_________________
John - Mechanical Guru :ugeek:
Scottish Area Rep
Citroën C1
Honda Civic Type-S GT
Renault 5 Auto


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group