lamborghini plonker crash in London, takes out 3 other cars

[symyjym]

Over 15 years dealing with these types of claims. There is no proof that the Lambo was speeding.

Of course there is proof You can clearly hear his acceleration on the video and it took him 100 ft to stop.

What’s the braking distance at 30mph?

 

[Guy Fawkes]

The Mazda driver is at fault here imo. The Mazda driver is emerging from a side road into a main road in which the Lamborghini along which the travelling, it is not the responsibility of the Lamboghini driver to allow out any (and therefore every) car pulling out of a side road into the main road as the Lamborghini driver has right of way but rather the Mazda drivers responsibility to ensure that the route is clear before turning into a different road from a junction.

Others have mentioned a limited view caused by a bus, why didn't the Mazda driver wait until their view was unobscured?

The only reason the Lamborghini driver is getting so much stick (and therefore those pointing the finger of blame) is because he was driving a Lamborghini, had he been driving a everyday run of the mill cheap car and the incident played out in exactly the same sequence of events, i doubt half those balming the Lamboghini driver would be blaming him then.

 

[Brightonfan1983]

Absolutely this.

This and this.

 

[drew]

Most accidents are not caught on film like that. I wonder if the police will look at any CCTV evidence from the surrounding streets to judge if the lambo driver was speeding in the minutes leading up to the crash. If nobody was injured I guess not?

Doesn't matter what he was doing in the minutes leading up to the crash though, it is what he was doing at the time of the crash. By all accounts the car is well known in the area and the driver acts like a complete knob but that won't have a bearing on deciding liability. The Mazda driver pulled out without checking that it was clear. It could have been a motorcyclist or a cyclist but on this occasion it was a £300k sports car.

 

[drew]

Of course there is proof You can clearly hear his acceleration on the video and it took him 100 ft to stop.

What’s the braking distance at 30mph?

Over revving does not constitute speeding, he could have been in first gear!!! Also, how did you get to 100ft? Suggest you look at the video again!

 

[Box of Frogs]

Of course there is proof You can clearly hear his acceleration on the video and it took him 100 ft to stop.

What’s the braking distance at 30mph?

You are assuming he had his foot on the brake pedal from the point of impact and assuming that a loud engine noise means he was accelerating. He could have been coasting and revving in neutral for all we know.

As I said there is no PROOF that a Court would accept to show he was speeding and even IF he was, the other car should not have pulled out in front of him!

 

[Box of Frogs]

On a completely separate point, but with your insurance expertise in mind, it doesn't seem right (if proved to be completely the Mazda driver's fault) that the Mazda insurer has to cough up for the repair/replacement of such a ridiculously expensive car. Is there (or if not perhaps there should be) a limit to the pay out, and if someone still wants to drive such expensive cars on our roads, then they pay (or get additionally insured) anything over and above that reasonable limit even if not their fault?

Not really no - the person driving the ridiculously expensive car will himself have to pay a pretty high premium to insure his car. Insurers cannot allow for their insured hitting any type of vehicle on the road. They can only legislate for the type of vehicle their insured drives, their insured's age, driving experience, claims history etc - but that is delving into the dark art of underwriting, of which I am no expert.

The insurer will have reinsurance so that any claims they pay over a certain amount (typically around £500k upwards) would then be covered by reinsurers.

So basically Insurers take out insurance against having to pay very expensive claims.

 

[Box of Frogs]

Doesn't matter what he was doing in the minutes leading up to the crash though, it is what he was doing at the time of the crash. By all accounts the car is well known in the area and the driver acts like a complete knob but that won't have a bearing on deciding liability. The Mazda driver pulled out without checking that it was clear. It could have been a motorcyclist or a cyclist but on this occasion it was a £300k sports car.

This!

 

[symyjym]

Over revving does not constitute speeding, he could have been in first gear!!! Also, how did you get to 100ft? Suggest you look at the video again!

Over revving

This might help give an example of how he was driving:



Flooring it and slowing down, again and again.

The Mazda driver was caught out by the Lambo playing silly buggers on the road.

It took him 100 ft to stop even when aided by the 3 cars he hit.



All the evidence is stacked against the Lambo driver, though I am sure we will find out in due course.

 

[beorhthelm]

those analysing the speed and using the stopping distance might like to note that the lambo spends most the distance in the air. stopping distance only counts if car is in contact with ground. revving the engine, driving round in 2nd and launch starting off the lights (or zebra crossings) do not constitute evidence of speeding. just being a dick.

 

[drew]

On a completely separate point, but with your insurance expertise in mind, it doesn't seem right (if proved to be completely the Mazda driver's fault) that the Mazda insurer has to cough up for the repair/replacement of such a ridiculously expensive car. Is there (or if not perhaps there should be) a limit to the pay out, and if someone still wants to drive such expensive cars on our roads, then they pay (or get additionally insured) anything over and above that reasonable limit even if not their fault?

Another way of looking at is why should you have to pay for damage to your property caused by the negligence of an identified third party!

 

[symyjym]

You are assuming he had his foot on the brake pedal from the point of impact and assuming that a loud engine noise means he was accelerating. He could have been coasting and revving in neutral for all we know.

As I said there is no PROOF that a Court would accept to show he was speeding and even IF he was, the other car should not have pulled out in front of him!

So what you are saying is that I can drive around at 40 mph in a 30mph, and if someone misjudges my illegal speed and pulls out, I can crash into them and tell them it's their fault. even with conclusive video evidence.

Plenty of proof here for the insurance companies to make up their minds on this.

 

[Box of Frogs]

How do you know with absolute certainty what speed he was going?

 

[Guy Fawkes]

So what you are saying is that I can drive around at 40 mph in a 30mph, and if someone misjudges my illegal speed and pulls out, I can crash into them and tell them it's their fault. even with conclusive video evidence.

Plenty of proof here for the insurance companies to make up their minds on this.

Can you give an accurate speed for the Lamborghini at the point of impact? not a best guess but an accurate speed using approved equipment that will be admissable in a court of law? - not your best guess based on a video which may have been sped up or slowed down (because the recording equipment isn't working at exactly 24 frames per second and therefore isn't functioning correctly or it could have been done deliberately to make the Lamboghini look like it was going faster than it was.)

 

[symyjym]

How do you know with absolute certainty what speed he was going?

Because standard stopping distance at 30mph is 75 ft. He travelled 100 ft even after smashing into 3 cars. Newtons third law of motion "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" Even when he flew into the air the upwards motion would have lessened the forward motion.

Then also bearing in mind that this Lambo can break from 60mph to 0 in 108 ft, his 30 mph to zero should have been something like 40 ft.

So it's all down to physics really and you either see it or you don't.

 

[drew]

Over revving

This might help give an example of how he was driving:



Flooring it and slowing down, again and again.

The Mazda driver was caught out by the Lambo playing silly buggers on the road.

It took him 100 ft to stop even when aided by the 3 cars he hit.

View attachment 52478

All the evidence is stacked against the Lambo driver, though I am sure we will find out in due course.

I hope you're not a lawyer as I can't see you having many successful cases!!!

The video you use to suggest he is flooring it and slowing down again and again merely shows him waiting at a zebra crossing, accelerating away and then stopping ahead, possible for traffic. Accelerates once and stops once. Defeats your supposition that it is again and again!!

The clearest evidence about liability is the fact that the Mazda driver emerged from the side road into the path of the Lamborghini!!

 

[Box of Frogs]

Because standard stopping distance at 30mph is 75 ft. He travelled 100 ft even after smashing into 3 cars. Newtons third law of motion "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" Even when he flew into the air the upwards motion would have lessened the forward motion.

Then also bearing in mind that this Lambo can break from 60mph to 0 in 108 ft, his 30 mph to zero should have been something like 40 ft.

So it's all down to physics really and you either see it or you don't.

So when exactly did he put his foot on the brake pedal?

Slowing down in mid air would have been less than slowing down on the road - less drag innit.

 

[drew]

So what you are saying is that I can drive around at 40 mph in a 30mph, and if someone misjudges my illegal speed and pulls out, I can crash into them and tell them it's their fault. even with conclusive video evidence.

Plenty of proof here for the insurance companies to make up their minds on this.

It is their fault and if they can't judge speed then perhaps they shouldn't be on the road. Based on your ideas, the other way of looking at it is that if you see someone speeding then you have the right to pull out in front of them and not be liable for the consequences. Does that sound common sense to you?

The insurers of the Mazda will be relieved that there appears to be no serious injury as that would substantially bump up any claim.

 

[symyjym]

I hope you're not a lawyer as I can't see you having many successful cases!!!

The video you use to suggest he is flooring it and slowing down again and again merely shows him waiting at a zebra crossing, accelerating away and then stopping ahead, possible for traffic. Accelerates once and stops once. Defeats your supposition that it is again and again!!

The clearest evidence about liability is the fact that the Mazda driver emerged from the side road into the path of the Lamborghini!!

It is reported that the Lambo driver put a note on the wrecked BMW drivers window to explain why his car was hit, then when owner of the BMW came back to his car, the Lambo driver was still there and appologised personally.

Quote:

The BMW involved is owned by art consultant Lila Afshar, who returned from a Mother’s Day lunch with her two daughters to see the crash wreckage.

She told the London Evening Standard: ‘We showed up about three hours after the incident and there was a letter on the windshield.

‘The Lamborghini was being towed away and the owner came up and explained what had happened. He was really apologetic about it.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tador-worth-300-000-speed-215mph-wrecked.html

 

[Mackenzie]

I'm glad no one was hurt. The cars can be repaired.