Safe Speed Forums

This account of a serious RTA in Cumbria was posted today on uk.rec.driving by Ian Bailey (who is someone I've met on one occasion and corresponded with by e-mail). As it's on Usenet it's effectively in the public domain and thus I hope he doesn't mind it being repeated:

==============================================

I was involved in my first serious RTA today. Was driving west on the A685 towards Tebay when I came over a brow and realised there were two sets of headlights coming towards me and doing so fast. I hit the brakes and hit main beam as a first instinct.

Before I had a chance to do anything else I realised the oncoming van
was not going to clear and he hit me straight on - I had a chance to
scream but that was about it. The head-on impact pushed my car
backwards about 100 yards before stopping, mercifully still on the
tarmac. In the space of 2 seconds I'd gone from happily driving along
to quite literally thinking I was about to die to sitting choking on
the airbag gases wondering why I was still breathing.

A little about speed and conditions. It was 0745, so still pretty dark.
It was drizzling so visibility was pretty poor and the road was greasy.
I was doing 50-55 mph in no real hurry, and the van driver later
admitted to me he was "shifting" to overtake the lorry he was alongside
when we hit.

It would have been nice had someone stopped to help - either the truck
he was overtaking which was banned from the road anyway or the vehicles
behind it, or the people who squeezed past the wreckage as we sat waiting for the police and paramedics.

The van driver was fine apart from shock. I've got Whiplash and severe
bruisingh on my chest, soo apart from that and the forthcoming
nightmares I am sure to have I'm in one piece. His van is repairable,
my car a write off - I took pictures after we got recovered to a
garage: http://headoncrash.fotopic.net/c369684_1.html. Shouldn't talk
about the legal stuff but lets just say (as the copper did off the
record) that they're throwing the book at him, and it looks like he's
going to get sacked too for good measure. As you can see in the
pictures, my Vectra was up against a 3 tonne fully loaded van, so
frankly I got off lightly.

Some thoughts:
1) I hit him squarely because I had no time rto even consider swerving.
The crumple zone saved my life. Had I swerved he'd have hit at an angle
reducing the cushion and probably throwing me off the road in the
process
2) A note to morons who think overtaking in the dark and rain when you
can't see the road in front of you is OK. Believe me, don't do it. He
said that he didn't see headlights when he pulled out - thats because I
was hidden by a bend and a dip
3) I can suddenly understand why people claim for "accidents that
wasn't your fault". This guy nearly widowed my wife and orphaned my
son. That makes me very angry, and thats in addition to the effects on
me which have already seen me in floods of tears on and off all day.

So there you go. Regardless of how stiff and immobile I am this
Christmas I plan to have a very good time, thanking God that I am still
here to enjoy it.

==============================================

If nothing else, this is a tribute to the crashworthiness of modern cars. He'd probably not have survived that in a Cortina.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

My word.,,,

Thank the Lord that he is so well in the circumstances, Peter. I sincerly hope Ian makes a full recovery physically. Menatally I'm sure he will, but it will be a fair long time.

Edit: Easy with 20/20 hindsight but the other thing here is to wonder why he was not approaching the hill on main beam, ready to dip. That may have stopped white-van man from pulling out or made him abort.

He says he doesn't feel too bad, but I suspect it'll catch up with him after a day or two.

He's a high-mileage company car driver who also thinks nothing of doing 500-mile pleasure trips using his company fuel, so I suspect he'll be back behind the wheel ASAP.

I'm still amazed that someone can walk away from a smash like that.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Looking at the damage, I'd say there was some serious speed reduction before impact. The does NOT look like 70mph(?)+55mph to me.

Does anyone know better?

Delighted to hear that everyone walked away.

There's advice in Roadcraft about the "lurker" - the van appears to have been a lurker, swooping out to overtake into Ian's path. (although to be fair, it's very hard to make allowances for a lurker on genuinely two lane roads.

Most two lane roads are easily wide enough to accommodate three abreast in an emergency. Two or three of you just have to believe it.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

When I looked at the photos I was expecting major damage based on the speed but that looks almost minor damage. I would guess that the actual combined impact speed would have been no more that about 40-50mph to do so little damage.

You must have both slowed rather dramatically prior to the impact but regardless of the impact speed there is no excuse for "van man".

Glad to hear you are OK and I hope van man gets the book!

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

Going by the original account and the pictures I'd say that the car must have all but stopped and been struck by the van still doing around 20-30mph. The wet road and the mass of the van would explain how the car managed to be pushed back a fair distance whilst still remaining more or less intact.

As an aside, this is a fairly good demonstration of the importance of "user response" as opposed to speed limitation. Based on the original account, in this instance it is clear that both people involved have reacted and got rid of a great deal of energy prior to the impact, which has undoubtedly prevented loss of life.

In so many cases what happens during that tiny instant of time, that two seconds before impact, is absolutely critical in determining the outcome. Far, far more important than small variations in initial travelling speed.

But what if there had been a speed camera at the point where the van was overtaking. Imagine if this had caused him to check his speedo at the moment the car came into view? The distraction of checking that his speed was 60 not 65 and the consequent lack of response to the hazard could well have squandered that vital instant and turned a "damage only" into a multiple fatal.

But whatever the mechanism that led to the crash I'm glad to hear your friend was ok though. A very fortunate escape.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Some people take daft chances and this one wasn't so lucky. I've encountered people overtaking me on seriously blind summits with about 50YDS to go to the summit and cars travelling at around 50MPH, obviously has too much faith in GOD.

Andrew

_________________
It's a scam........or possibly a scamola


Homer Simpson

Which is another situation where we are once again handed an opportunity to make things safer for everyone.

Ok, the overtaking driver is absolutely in the wrong in this situation, but as the driver being overtaken we can still have a huge influence on the outcome by immediately backing off and moving as far left as possible, so that the overtaking idiot gets back out of danger as quickly as he can.

One thing that appals me is drivers whose response to this type of maneouvre would be to speed up and push the idiot into more danger than ever, in the misguided belief that he is teaching him a lesson. He might well be, but it's a pretty severe one, especially for the innocent driver coming the other way!

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

I know only to well what being involved in a RTA is like. In January 1980, I was a passenger in Ford Cortina mk 3 that was involved in a side on impact with some moron who jumped a red light. My mother was injured and I had whiplash. I failed all my exams at school and when a teacher asked me why I'd failed, I told him and he said, "You have all that behind you now." EXCUSE ME, but almost 25 years on, I still get flashbacks everytime I go to turn right at junctions! By the way, the moron responsible only got a £40 fine and a license endorsement...for a second offence of that nature and he was up on five charges of reckless driving. He wasn't even in court!

In a way I'm glad I was in a Cortina mk3. It was built like a tank. Any lesser car, I wouldn't be here today.

Last April, I was called up for jury service and was Jury Foreman on an RTA case. I had to back out of it after telling the Judge of my bad experience. The Judge discharged me after a brief discussion with the prosecutor. I don't think I could've gone through it and suffered more flashbacks.

Well said JT. It's the same with tailgating, jumping on the brakes to give the tailgater a fright is likely to end up in disaster (or embarassment as I can testify). As individuals we will seldom, if ever, teach a bad driver a lesson he/she will remember - mainly because the individual concerned is not of a mind to believe they need teaching a lesson in the first instance.
It's just so unfortunate that there is only a small chance of the real idiots on the road being taught a lesson through the appropriate method of the courts.

As a 12 year old I was passenger in a car that was badly overtaken. My dad was driving. When it was clear it wasn't safe my father braked very hard to let the idiot go in front. Trouble is the idiot braked very hard too, clearly hoping to drop in behind and we'd hung him out to dry. There wasn't a crash, but I can't actually remember how the crash was avoided. The idiot did eventually drop in behind.

I don't know if it's theory or memory, but it's clearly possible to go through a couple of "mode switches" with both vehicles making alternative decisions at the same time. (e.g. we both see that braking isn't working and both get back on the power at the same time - we're still stuck side by side.)

With this incident in mind, if someone looks as if they are comitting to overtaking me dangerously I indicate my intention to give way as early as possible hoping to avoid the dangerous "double give way" / "braking side by side" effect. I would give two out of three of the following indications:

• a chink to the left
• a flash of the brake lights
• a single flash of the left indicator

Or anything else I can think of to create a definition. That's the real problem - the correct escape isn't defined - I try to define it.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I can think of a scenario. How many times have you and another driver coming towards each other with limited passing space and both stop and flash for each other to go then there is a pause and both decide to then go thinking the other driver is going to wait after the first clash of decisions? You never know what the other driver's intentions are but they mostly seem to be the same as yours, which causes these conflicts.

Andrew

_________________
It's a scam........or possibly a scamola


Homer Simpson

Suggests he had come to a stop or very nearly.


Either the lorry braked at the same time as the van and there was the deadlock Paul suggests or he didn't brake at all.


This bit stuck out for me. I assume the vehicle/driver have been traced. It is quite possible the actions of this driver as the van began overtaking will have had a large influence on the outcome.
If it really should not have been on the road then you have to say that keeping it off the road would have prevented this accident.

I think this accident also clearly underlines the safety benefits of ABS. As Ian said, when he saw the oncoming van, he stamped on his brakes. In the second or two before impact, the ABS probably kicked in and almost brought his car to a stop.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

"Is the stopping distance shorter with ABS?

No! From early commercials, it may have looked like you could stop on a dime. That instantaneous stop is not realistic. When braking on dry or wet roads your stopping distance will be about the same as with conventional brakes.
You should allow for a longer stopping distance with ABS than for conventional brakes when driving on gravel, slush, and snow. This is because the rotating tire will stay on top of this low traction road surface covering, and effectively "float" on this boundary layer.
A non ABS braked vehicle can lock its tires and create a snow plow effect in front of the tires which helps slow the vehicle. These locked tires can often find more traction below this boundary layer."

It's a fallacy that you stop quicker with ABS. On a dry road, a locked set of wheels will stop you quicker. The friction is actually better than the on/off/on/off effect of ABS. This was described AND proved to us on Scampton airfield in a 44 tonne tanker with a switchable braking system!

I'm well aware of all of that. But on a wet or greasy road (which was the case in Ian's accident) stamping on the brakes and activating the ABS would certainly stop you much quicker. As it did for him.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I disagree. I've seen evidence (Top Gear I think, about 5 years ago) involving cars (not 44 tonners) that ABS *does* improve stopping distance on dry roads at mediochre speeds. It may well be that at VERY high speeds the rubber gets sticky as it flatspots, but the retardation forces under ABS braking before the tyre overheats and gets "drag" sticky are higher. Even higher with cadence braking.

Remember that the quality of ABS systems varies immensely. Contrary to the image most people have it isn't simply a standard box that is fitted. In a "cooking" car the ABS will tend to be quite crude and intrusive, and not come anywhere close to achieving the theoretical best braking performance. More expensive (and sportier) cars have much more sophisticated systems that "give less away", indeed I was reading recently that the system fitted to the Lotus Elise was so finely tuned that several professional test drivers couldn't tell it was activated, even under circuit conditions.

When ABS first came along I was totally "anti", as I felt that it would dumb down drivers. Now I think I'm mostly in favour of it, I've got more pragmatic as I've got older and I realise that what it loses against the "theoretical best" driver is nothing compared to the gain it gives over the realistic average driver.

In a situation like the one outlined in this post, most average drivers will panic and stamp on the brakes. With a non ABS car on a wet road that means all 4 wheels immediately lock solid and the car will glide on with next to no braking effect, as there will be virtually no forward weight transfer to load up the front tyres. With ABS it will at least make the best of what it can, and in practical terms the (say) 90% braking effort it achieves will be far higher than that achieved by a panicking driver. It also gives him a chance of swerving too.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Sorry Oscar, you are missing the MOST important aspect of ABS, STEERING. When you lock the wheels and start skidding that is the direction you will continue to travel until you 1. stop, 2. hit something and stop or 3. take your foot off the brake and get the wheels turning again.

ABS has to be the BEST enhancement I have ever seen in a car. What's the point of airbags and crumple zones unless you actually crash? Why not avoid the crash, where possible, by turning the steering wheel away from the danger zone even while attempting to force the brake pedal through the floor?

I am 50 years old and have grown up through drum brakes on a Ford Prefect to current disk/ABS brakes on high performance BMW's and I say thank God for ABS. In my driving I use the ABS as a guide to how well I am braking, if it shudders I am not braking to the optimum ability of the brakes and back off. For the num num who has no idea at least he/she can still try and avoid the crash site by steering away from it. If they are so dumb that they do not know they can still steer and stare resolutely at the place they obviously do not want to be then the crumple zones and airbags need to be deployed.

I 100% agree about snow and gravel roads but there needs to be a trade-off between safety for 99% -v- 1% on snow/gravel. If you spend a great deal of time on these surfaces then get the ABS disconnected but if, like me, you spend the vast majority of your time on bitumen roads then ABS is the MOST important safety equipment that you can have built into a car.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

Read the first sentence properly, which is from a web-site on ABS (not my work.)
Also, as I read the lead article, it was a straight line head-on accident?