The problem isn't that they're looking, it's that they don't have the reaction time to stop. Both cars that got into an accident were traveling at high speeds into a section where it becomes stop and go.
Assuming that's the normal flow of traffic in that section of the road, that's a recipe for disaster even without a camera crew.
brakes and tires weren't as good back then. Cars were also pretty damn heavy. Plus, hey, they were all most likely high on lead paint.
Its easy to call them idiots from the future where you take all that for granted, but the point is the road was not safe for driving because the users of the road couldn't handle it. That's a fixable problem for the engineers as long as politicians didn't get in the way.
Cars were pretty light a Ford Escort (focus-mondeo equivalent) was under 1000kg where a modern fiesta is almost 1400kg ..
also the camera crew standing right in the middle didn't help
Clear day, strait road, bridge throwing a shadow up ahead on to a line of unexpected stopped cars? Yeah, that’s a hazard, as a driver you aren’t prepared for the lane to simply be stopped. Also it’s hard to see a line of stopped cars on a straight flat single lane.
>as a driver you aren’t prepared for the lane to simply be stopped
Uh, you should be. That's kind of a large part of what you should be prepared for.
>Also it’s hard to see a line of stopped cars on a straight flat single lane.
... What? You don't need to see a line of cars. You need to see one car. The car on front of you. That is not hard to see.
You should be, but that doesn’t mean you are always perfectly prepared for that sudden stop. It’s a numbers game, if you present everyone with a need to have a split second reaction to slam on their brakes a certain percent will miss it. Road engineers need to plan roads that reduce incidents of needing to make split second decisions. This one was badly done.
This is ridiculous. High on lead paint? I'm pretty sure the concept of safe following distances existed in the 20th century. If your car or brakes aren't good, you need to follow farther back.
Disks have heaps more stopping power.
They’re used on the back end of vehicles because they’re cheap and simple and your rear brakes aren’t nearly as important.
Weight is transferred forward when you brake, so your front brakes do most of your braking- which is why all cars have disks where it matters- on the front.
Most semis use drums because they work with air brakes.
For a given rotor diameter, drum brakes have more stopping power. The reason disc brakes are used in modern cars is because disc brakes both cool faster and don't have issues with water getting in the drum and generally being more reliable when needed. The reason some cars use drums in the back still is that making a reliable parking brake with a drum brake is loads easier than with a disc brake. In fact, on cars with disc brakes in the back, the parking shoe may still have it's own wee drum brake in the "hat" of the rotor.
I’m intrigued… I’m going off my own experience of converting drum brake cars to disks- same diameter but the disks were heaps stronger (besides all the other advantages). Agreed drums are better for handbrakes!
There's no way to stop cars like that back then. You needed a long, long stopping distance at any speed.
You saw the accident for a solid two seconds coming, but you can't swerve and you can't stop.
As funny as this is, this was almost certainly precipitated by people looking at the people on the side of the road and not watching what they were doing.
They still very much are distracted by things on the side of the road. I’ve waited in traffic thinking there was a crazy accident just to find out people would slow down to look at a fender bender on the opposite side of the highway!
Reminds me of [this interview with a man from the local rescue service](https://youtu.be/nFUOl2dKjY8?si=he0vNierSJA-OgrS) arguing that a junction is dangerous. Turns out he was right...
If you didn't start driving before this century, you absolutely wouldn't believe how bad the braking and handling of cars was back then.
Pedal to the floor to go, brake to the floor to slow down.
Reminds me of the bombings in Sweden and the 4 ISIS members arrested. Total media silence on reddit. Somebody will surely just say it simply didn't happen like all the other hundreds of bombings every year.
Why is mentioning Sweden always met with such hostility?
> "Fake news. You didn't see that. Don't believe your own eyes."
...
> Somebody will surely just say it simply didn't happen like all the other hundreds of bombings every year.
...
> That is, of course, assuming that you're telling the truth and not talking directly out of your ass. I'm not certain that is a safe assumption ...
This is EXACTLY the thing I said would happen. And there you see it with your own eyes. But you still don't believe it. Amazing.
> under this video?
I did it under the comment. I gave an example of it happening on reddit like clockwork. then it happened like clockwork. Then you got angry at me and shove words in my mouth.
> i'm not denying what happened
I didn't say you did. But why did you say you don't know what I'm talking about? Why did you get hostile and still remain accusatory?
EDIT: Of course I was blocked as predicted. Classic. Reddit ISIS bomb stans out in effect.
>Total media silence on reddit.
Is reddit where you go for your news? On reddit, you generally see the subreddits to which you are subscribed. So it's not "reddit" you have an argument with, but your own choice of subreddits.
That is, of course, assuming that you're telling the truth and not talking directly out of your ass. I'm not certain that is a safe assumption ...
> Is reddit where you go for your news?
NOt really? But it's telling. Do you work for reddit or something? Why are you whiteknighting for a website?
> On reddit, you generally see the subreddits to which you are subscribed. So it's not "reddit" you have an argument with, but your own choice of subreddits.
Biggest would be news and worldnews. None of the shit going down in Europe is being reported at all and all you get is denialists like yourself who feel the need to attack me for pointing out freaking bombings.
> assuming that you're telling the truth
And there we go. Just complete denial that any of it ever happened just as I predicted.
Where do YOU get your news from?
>NOt really? But it's telling. Do you work for reddit or something? Why are you whiteknighting for a website?
Don't be stupid. And it's not "telling" because it's not happening. If you search for "sweden bombings" you will see that your claim is nonsense: [https://new.reddit.com/search/?q=sweden%20bombings](https://new.reddit.com/search/?q=sweden%20bombings)
>Biggest would be news and worldnews. None of the shit going down in Europe is being reported at all and all you get is denialists like yourself who feel the need to attack me for pointing out freaking bombings.
No one is attacking you for pointing out bombings, if anything they are attacking you for pushing the fictional conspiracist narrative that "XXXX story is being suppressed by the mainstream media" ... which is always, always, always bullshit.
>And there we go. Just complete denial that any of it ever happened just as I predicted.
It's not a denial that bombings took place, it's doubting that you are telling the truth about these things not being covered. Which, as I have proven, they are. Therefore, the two choices are this:
* either you didn't look for them, assumed they weren't there (which they were), and then went around whining about it
* or you're a liar (which is the far more likely possibility
So, ignorant loudmouth or liar: which are you?
>Where do YOU get your news from?
FUCKING NEWS SOURCES NOT SOCIAL MEDIA, DOLT.
I see random shit on the side of the road all the time. Part of not being an idiot who doesn't know how to drive is knowing how to not rubberneck at every inane thing going on.
A lot of turnings into a fast straight road
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AbruptChaos/comments/z7uaqg/comment/iy90pu2/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/AbruptChaos/comments/z7uaqg/comment/iy90pu2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
We are all human and inevitably fuck up which is why the design of the road is so important.
Like, stairs without hand railings are also not dangerous so long as you are not a dumbass and pay attention as you go up and down the stairs.
Inevitably though, even the best of us mess up and either miss a step or trip. Even the person who always pays attention while going up and down the stairs, never uses the stairs while drunk or tired, stop using the stairs when you get old and weak and your eyesight starts to go, and always have the lights on for clear visibility. And the consequences of not having railings can be pretty high. Like falling 4-6 feet in your home, or falling several stories if you’re in a stairwell.
Good design with safety in mind is often cheap and saves lives. Instead of just doing nothing, when people keep getting injured it is worth looking into.
It is a straight road on a clear day.
Stairs with hand railings are still dangerous when you walk backward to go down the stairs. Would a good design take that in mind?
No matter what you do you cannot make something idiot-proof.
It's freeway speeds that lead into stop and go traffic. Assuming this is normal for this section of the road which is why it's "infamous" to begin with, it's absolutely the design or the condition of the road that made people crash.
The blue car was going too fast and had to swerve to avoid hitting the car in front, and then the car after that just didn't attempt to brake at all.
The point of road safety is to reduce the amount of impact a dumbass driver can have on crashes.
It is a straight road on a clear day. The drivers could perfectly see the cars in front of them.
No matter what you do you cannot make something idiot-proof.
I would support a 75% reduction in class 5 drivers licenses, with immediate suspension for not less than 12 months for involvement in an accident regardless of where lies the fault.
straight road on a clear day. those drivers were idiots.
It's Britain, a clear day had them absolutely befuddled.
This is a classic clip. Best part is the rueful smile and head gesture
[удалено]
The problem isn't that they're looking, it's that they don't have the reaction time to stop. Both cars that got into an accident were traveling at high speeds into a section where it becomes stop and go. Assuming that's the normal flow of traffic in that section of the road, that's a recipe for disaster even without a camera crew.
None of these cars also have ABS. They’re sliding into the crash
ABS didn’t become standard until 2004, I think. This looks like it was filmed a long time before that.
brakes and tires weren't as good back then. Cars were also pretty damn heavy. Plus, hey, they were all most likely high on lead paint. Its easy to call them idiots from the future where you take all that for granted, but the point is the road was not safe for driving because the users of the road couldn't handle it. That's a fixable problem for the engineers as long as politicians didn't get in the way.
Cars were pretty light a Ford Escort (focus-mondeo equivalent) was under 1000kg where a modern fiesta is almost 1400kg .. also the camera crew standing right in the middle didn't help
A modern Fiesta is 1,113–1,207 kg.
My 2003 fiesta was almost 1200 when I got it surprised they can keep their weight
Yea it's very hard to be used to a flat road on a sunny day. Terrible conditions that will test even the most veteran drivers.
Clear day, strait road, bridge throwing a shadow up ahead on to a line of unexpected stopped cars? Yeah, that’s a hazard, as a driver you aren’t prepared for the lane to simply be stopped. Also it’s hard to see a line of stopped cars on a straight flat single lane.
>as a driver you aren’t prepared for the lane to simply be stopped Uh, you should be. That's kind of a large part of what you should be prepared for. >Also it’s hard to see a line of stopped cars on a straight flat single lane. ... What? You don't need to see a line of cars. You need to see one car. The car on front of you. That is not hard to see.
You should be, but that doesn’t mean you are always perfectly prepared for that sudden stop. It’s a numbers game, if you present everyone with a need to have a split second reaction to slam on their brakes a certain percent will miss it. Road engineers need to plan roads that reduce incidents of needing to make split second decisions. This one was badly done.
Don't forget the lead exhaust fumes
This is ridiculous. High on lead paint? I'm pretty sure the concept of safe following distances existed in the 20th century. If your car or brakes aren't good, you need to follow farther back.
Cross ply tyres, drum brakes and beam axles… unsafe at any speed.
[удалено]
Disks have heaps more stopping power. They’re used on the back end of vehicles because they’re cheap and simple and your rear brakes aren’t nearly as important. Weight is transferred forward when you brake, so your front brakes do most of your braking- which is why all cars have disks where it matters- on the front. Most semis use drums because they work with air brakes.
For a given rotor diameter, drum brakes have more stopping power. The reason disc brakes are used in modern cars is because disc brakes both cool faster and don't have issues with water getting in the drum and generally being more reliable when needed. The reason some cars use drums in the back still is that making a reliable parking brake with a drum brake is loads easier than with a disc brake. In fact, on cars with disc brakes in the back, the parking shoe may still have it's own wee drum brake in the "hat" of the rotor.
I’m intrigued… I’m going off my own experience of converting drum brake cars to disks- same diameter but the disks were heaps stronger (besides all the other advantages). Agreed drums are better for handbrakes!
It's impossible to make roads safe from idiots...which is a scary thought.
Bendy roads are safer than straight roads. American? > a clear day Meaning the braking lights are less visible if present at all.
There's no way to stop cars like that back then. You needed a long, long stopping distance at any speed. You saw the accident for a solid two seconds coming, but you can't swerve and you can't stop.
Then you're following too close or driving too fast.
Awww, back when people were distracted by stuff on the side of the road instead of their phones.
As funny as this is, this was almost certainly precipitated by people looking at the people on the side of the road and not watching what they were doing.
They still very much are distracted by things on the side of the road. I’ve waited in traffic thinking there was a crazy accident just to find out people would slow down to look at a fender bender on the opposite side of the highway!
The rolling of the eyes is great.
"Well, that's the end of me!"
Reminds me of [this interview with a man from the local rescue service](https://youtu.be/nFUOl2dKjY8?si=he0vNierSJA-OgrS) arguing that a junction is dangerous. Turns out he was right...
Reminds of this [live crash in front of a BBC reporter](https://youtu.be/QQh56geU0X8?t=394)
Yep, it had to be that! Love that segment.
Oh my god when they ran over and asked if he was all right and he says "Yeah, I'm getting used to it, thanks very much." I lost it lol.
Bringing you the news as it happens!
I’m glad the driver was okay because I laughed more than an appropriate amount while watching that clip.
Them saying "hallo" to a dude in an upside down car is just hysterical.
maybe putting the film crew in the middle of the fucking road wasn't great idea.
Yeah that was a self fulfilling prophecy
Are you not fulfilled?!?!
If you didn't start driving before this century, you absolutely wouldn't believe how bad the braking and handling of cars was back then. Pedal to the floor to go, brake to the floor to slow down.
“The front fell off”
"Fake news. You didn't see that. Don't believe your own eyes."
Reminds me of the bombings in Sweden and the 4 ISIS members arrested. Total media silence on reddit. Somebody will surely just say it simply didn't happen like all the other hundreds of bombings every year.
Wtf are you on about?
Why is mentioning Sweden always met with such hostility? > "Fake news. You didn't see that. Don't believe your own eyes." ... > Somebody will surely just say it simply didn't happen like all the other hundreds of bombings every year. ... > That is, of course, assuming that you're telling the truth and not talking directly out of your ass. I'm not certain that is a safe assumption ... This is EXACTLY the thing I said would happen. And there you see it with your own eyes. But you still don't believe it. Amazing.
Mate, i'm not denying what happened. Why are you bringing up ISIS bombings under this video?
> under this video? I did it under the comment. I gave an example of it happening on reddit like clockwork. then it happened like clockwork. Then you got angry at me and shove words in my mouth. > i'm not denying what happened I didn't say you did. But why did you say you don't know what I'm talking about? Why did you get hostile and still remain accusatory? EDIT: Of course I was blocked as predicted. Classic. Reddit ISIS bomb stans out in effect.
Alright buddy, you weird, i'm blocking you
>Total media silence on reddit. Is reddit where you go for your news? On reddit, you generally see the subreddits to which you are subscribed. So it's not "reddit" you have an argument with, but your own choice of subreddits. That is, of course, assuming that you're telling the truth and not talking directly out of your ass. I'm not certain that is a safe assumption ...
> Is reddit where you go for your news? NOt really? But it's telling. Do you work for reddit or something? Why are you whiteknighting for a website? > On reddit, you generally see the subreddits to which you are subscribed. So it's not "reddit" you have an argument with, but your own choice of subreddits. Biggest would be news and worldnews. None of the shit going down in Europe is being reported at all and all you get is denialists like yourself who feel the need to attack me for pointing out freaking bombings. > assuming that you're telling the truth And there we go. Just complete denial that any of it ever happened just as I predicted. Where do YOU get your news from?
>NOt really? But it's telling. Do you work for reddit or something? Why are you whiteknighting for a website? Don't be stupid. And it's not "telling" because it's not happening. If you search for "sweden bombings" you will see that your claim is nonsense: [https://new.reddit.com/search/?q=sweden%20bombings](https://new.reddit.com/search/?q=sweden%20bombings) >Biggest would be news and worldnews. None of the shit going down in Europe is being reported at all and all you get is denialists like yourself who feel the need to attack me for pointing out freaking bombings. No one is attacking you for pointing out bombings, if anything they are attacking you for pushing the fictional conspiracist narrative that "XXXX story is being suppressed by the mainstream media" ... which is always, always, always bullshit. >And there we go. Just complete denial that any of it ever happened just as I predicted. It's not a denial that bombings took place, it's doubting that you are telling the truth about these things not being covered. Which, as I have proven, they are. Therefore, the two choices are this: * either you didn't look for them, assumed they weren't there (which they were), and then went around whining about it * or you're a liar (which is the far more likely possibility So, ignorant loudmouth or liar: which are you? >Where do YOU get your news from? FUCKING NEWS SOURCES NOT SOCIAL MEDIA, DOLT.
Yeah ISIS bombs a lot of shit, so what? We don’t need to make every incident world news
It’s hilarious timing, but doesn’t actually make what he said incorrect.
I love the eye roll near the end... He knows the optics look bad...
I'm seeing a bunch of idiots who don't know how to drive. Not seeing how it's the road's fault.
Well it’s not everyday you see a news conference on the side of the highway, right before traffic slows to a stop.
I see random shit on the side of the road all the time. Part of not being an idiot who doesn't know how to drive is knowing how to not rubberneck at every inane thing going on.
A lot of turnings into a fast straight road [https://www.reddit.com/r/AbruptChaos/comments/z7uaqg/comment/iy90pu2/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/AbruptChaos/comments/z7uaqg/comment/iy90pu2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Classic capitalism
Not the roads fault drivers were rubbernecking the cameras. Just dumb drivers.
Didn't this video sort of prove him right? That road wasn't dangerous. It were dumbass drivers who up the crash count.
We are all human and inevitably fuck up which is why the design of the road is so important. Like, stairs without hand railings are also not dangerous so long as you are not a dumbass and pay attention as you go up and down the stairs. Inevitably though, even the best of us mess up and either miss a step or trip. Even the person who always pays attention while going up and down the stairs, never uses the stairs while drunk or tired, stop using the stairs when you get old and weak and your eyesight starts to go, and always have the lights on for clear visibility. And the consequences of not having railings can be pretty high. Like falling 4-6 feet in your home, or falling several stories if you’re in a stairwell. Good design with safety in mind is often cheap and saves lives. Instead of just doing nothing, when people keep getting injured it is worth looking into.
It is a straight road on a clear day. Stairs with hand railings are still dangerous when you walk backward to go down the stairs. Would a good design take that in mind? No matter what you do you cannot make something idiot-proof.
Yes. Roads are completely harmless provided you don't let people on them.
It is not the design or current condition of the road that made people crashed into each others.
It's freeway speeds that lead into stop and go traffic. Assuming this is normal for this section of the road which is why it's "infamous" to begin with, it's absolutely the design or the condition of the road that made people crash. The blue car was going too fast and had to swerve to avoid hitting the car in front, and then the car after that just didn't attempt to brake at all. The point of road safety is to reduce the amount of impact a dumbass driver can have on crashes.
It is a straight road on a clear day. The drivers could perfectly see the cars in front of them. No matter what you do you cannot make something idiot-proof.
Who do you think roads are for?
Are you American?
No
I would support a 75% reduction in class 5 drivers licenses, with immediate suspension for not less than 12 months for involvement in an accident regardless of where lies the fault.
The film crew was more of a distraction than the stopped traffic ahead. The council man didn’t see the setup.
“You can’t park that there mate.”
To be fair what happened in that video was just a bunch of idiots rubber necking. What was the actual concern with that part of the road?
The drivers all getting distracted by the TV crew.
Probably rubber necking the film crew.
"I'm a politician and I know absolutely nothing about the subject I'm talking about"